Kingham v Yorkston - [2002] QSC 59

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kingham v Yorkston & Ors [2002] QSC 059

PARTIES:

PATRICIA KINGHAM
(applicant)
v
A L YORKSTON
(first respondent)
and
MICHAEL LANGTON
(second respondent)
and
AMANDA KIRKPATRICK
(third respondent)

FILE NO:

S3543 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial Division

DELIVERED ON:

20 March 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2002

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

1.        The order of referee A L Yorkston made in the Small Claims Tribunal at Gatton in claim numbers 71 of 2000 and 72 of 2000 on 31 January 2001 be quashed.

2.        The order of referee A L Yorkston made in the Small Claims Tribunal at Gatton in claim number 71 of 2000 on 22 March 2001 be quashed.

3.        The order of referee A L Yorkston made in the Small Claims Tribunal at Gatton in claim number 72 of 2000 on 22 March 2001 be quashed.

4.        The second and third respondents pay the applicant’s costs of this application to be assessed on the standard basis.

5.        The second and third respondents be granted an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 in respect of this application.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – application for review of decision of referee of Small Claims Tribunal – whether referee had jurisdiction to order re-hearing after making order disposing of dispute – whether jurisdiction under ss 23 or 34 of Small Claims Tribunal Act 1973

COSTS – DISCRETION – application for review of decision of referee of Small Claims Tribunal – no jurisdiction to order re-hearing – whether mistake of referee as to jurisdiction justified costs order against referee – whether mistake amounted to gross ignorance

Bancroft v Registrar and Referees of the Small Claims Tribunal [2000] QSC 427
City & Country Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd v Webster [2000] QSC 8
El Deeb v Magistrates Court of South Australia (1999) 72 SASR 596
Ex parte Blume; Re Osborn (1958) 58 SR (NSW) 334
Magistrates’ Court of Victoria v Robinson [2000] 2 VR 233
Sankey v Whitlam [1977] 1 NSWLR 333

Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973
Judicial Review Act 1991
Small Claims Tribunal Act 1973

UCPR r 699

COUNSEL:

N H Ferrett for the applicant
S A McLeod for the first respondent
Second respondent in person
Third respondent in person

SOLICITORS:

A Ace Solicitors for the applicant
C W Lohe for the first respondent

MULLINS J: This is an application brought by the applicant, Ms Patricia Kingham (“the applicant”), against orders made by the first respondent, Mr A L Yorkston (“the first respondent”), on 22 March 2001 in his capacity as referee of the Small Claims Tribunal (“the tribunal”) at Gatton in claim numbers 71 of 2000 and 72 of 2000.

The second and third respondents were the claimants in claim numbers 71 of 2000 and 72 of 2000 filed with the tribunal. Each claim related to the purchase of a Great Dane puppy by the second and third respondents from the applicant who is a breeder of Great Danes. In…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Kingham v Yorkston

Details

AGLC: Kingham v Yorkston [2002] QSC 59
Case: [2002] QSC 59
Decision Date: 20 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kingham v Yorkston involved an application for judicial review of decisions made by a referee in the Small Claims Tribunal of Queensland. The applicant, Kingham, sought to challenge orders made by referee Yorkston in two related claims. The dispute centred around the jurisdiction of the referee to order a re-hearing after having made an initial order disposing of the dispute. The legal issues at the heart of the case were whether the referee had jurisdiction to order a re-hearing under sections 23 or 34 of the Small Claims Tribunal Act 1973, and if so, whether the referee's mistaken belief about his jurisdiction justified an order for costs against him.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the Small Claims Tribunal and found that the referee did not have jurisdiction to order a re-hearing after making an initial order disposing of the dispute. The court held that the referee's order was beyond his jurisdiction, and thus, the orders made by the referee were quashed. In considering the question of costs, the court held that the referee's mistake as to his jurisdiction did not amount to gross ignorance, and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to an order for costs against the referee. However, the second and third respondents were ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the application.

The court's final orders included the quashing of the orders made by the referee in the two related claims, the direction that the second and third respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the application, and the granting of an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 in respect of the application. This decision underscores the importance of jurisdictional boundaries within administrative tribunals and the consequences of exceeding those boundaries.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The order of referee A L Yorkston made in the Small Claims Tribunal at Gatton in claim numbers 71 of 2000 and 72 of 2000 on 31 January 2001 be quashed.

2. The order of referee A L Yorkston made in the Small Claims Tribunal at Gatton in claim number 71 of 2000 on 22 March 2001 be quashed.

3. The order of referee A L Yorkston made in the Small Claims Tribunal at Gatton in claim number 72 of 2000 on 22 March 2001 be quashed.

4. The second and third respondents pay the applicant’s costs of this application to be assessed on the standard basis.

5. The second and third respondents be granted an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 in respect of this application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Kingham v Yorkston & Ors [2002] QSC 059
PARTIES:	PATRICIA KINGHAM (applicant) v A L YORKSTON (first respondent) and MICHAEL LANGTON (second respondent) and AMANDA KIRKPATRICK (third respondent)
FILE NO:	S3543 of 2001
DIVISION:	Trial Division
DELIVERED ON:	20 March 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 March 2002
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	1. The order of referee A L Yorkston made in the Small Claims Tribunal at Gatton in claim numbers 71 of 2000 and 72 of 2000 on 31 January 2001 be quashed. 2. The order of referee A L Yorkston made in the Small Claims Tribunal at Gatton in claim number 71 of 2000 on 22 March 2001 be quashed. 3. The order of referee A L Yorkston made in the Small Claims Tribunal at Gatton in claim number 72 of 2000 on 22 March 2001 be quashed. 4. The second and third respondents pay the applicant’s costs of this application to be assessed on the standard basis. *5. The second and third respondents be granted an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act* 1973 in respect of this application.**
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – application for review of decision of referee of Small Claims Tribunal – whether referee had jurisdiction to order re-hearing after making order disposing of dispute – whether jurisdiction under ss 23 or 34 of Small Claims Tribunal Act 1973 COSTS – DISCRETION – application for review of decision of referee of Small Claims Tribunal – no jurisdiction to order re-hearing – whether mistake of referee as to jurisdiction justified costs order against referee – whether mistake amounted to gross ignorance Bancroft v Registrar and Referees of the Small Claims Tribunal [2000] QSC 427 City & Country Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd v Webster [2000] QSC 8 El Deeb v Magistrates Court of South Australia (1999) 72 SASR 596 Ex parte Blume; Re Osborn (1958) 58 SR (NSW) 334 Magistrates’ Court of Victoria v Robinson [2000] 2 VR 233 Sankey v Whitlam [1977] 1 NSWLR 333 Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 Judicial Review Act 1991 Small Claims Tribunal Act 1973 UCPR r 699
COUNSEL:	N H Ferrett for the applicant S A McLeod for the first respondent Second respondent in person Third respondent in person
SOLICITORS:	A Ace Solicitors for the applicant C W Lohe for the first respondent