Kovacic v Australian Karting Association (Qld) Inc - [2008] QSC 344

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kovacic v Australian Karting Association (Qld) Inc [2008] QSC 344

PARTIES:

JAMES KOVACIC by his litigation guardian VALENTINO KOVACIC
(applicant)
v
AUSTRALIAN KARTING ASSOCIATION (QLD) INC
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 8505 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

DELIVERED ON:

22 December 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10, 12 November 2008

JUDGE:

Wilson J

ORDERS:

1. That the proceeding be dismissed;

2. That the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS – INCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS – INTERFERENCE IN INTERNAL MANAGEMENT – GENERALLY – where respondent an incorporated voluntary association which administers sport of karting – where respondent comprised of clubs – where resolution of respondent that clubs refuse to accept applicant’s race entry – where the Courts are reluctant to interfere in the affairs of voluntary associations – whether the fact that the respondent is incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act is enough to make validity of resolution justiciable – whether resolution has impact on applicant’s livelihood or reputation

PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – DECLARATIONS – standing to seek declaratory relief – where applicant has standing – where relief refused because issue non-justiciable

Associations Incorporation Act 1984 (NSW), s 18 Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Qld), s 2(f), s 26(2) Supreme Court Act1995 (Qld), s 128

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, cited Australian Workers' Union v Bowen (No 2) (1948) 77 CLR 601, cited Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10, cited Bornecrantz v Queensland Bridge Association Inc [1999] QSC 58, cited Cameron and Others v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358, cited Dickason v Edwards (1910) 10 CLR 243, cited Edgar and Walker v Meade (1916) 23 CLR 29, cited Forster v Jododex Aust Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421, cited Hornby v Narrandera Ex-Servicemen's Club Ltd [2001] NSWSC 235, cited Maloney v New South Wales Coursing Association Ltd (1978) 1 NSWLR 161, cited McClelland v Burning Palms Surf Life Saving Club (2002) 191 ALR 759, cited Mutasa v AG [1980] QB 114, cited Rose v Boxing New South Wales Inc [2007] NSWSC 20, cited Samuel v St George Leagues Club Ltd, NSWSC (20 October 1992), unreported judgment, cited University of Technology Sydney v Gerrard [2001] NSWSC 368, cited Wilson v RSL of Australia (Qld Branch) [2006] QSC 376

COUNSEL:

PD Dunning SC and CA Johnstone for the applicant

SJ Carius for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Levitt Robinson for the applicant

Slater & Gordon for the respondent

Wilson J: The applicant, a 15 year old boy who is a talented go-kart racer, lives in New South Wales. He has held a licence issued under the rules of the Australian Karting Association Incorporated ("the AKA") since January 2002, and he has scored places in national and state competitions. His parents are staunch and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kovacic v Australian Karting Association (Qld) Inc and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] QSC 344
Decision Date: 22 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kovacic v Australian Karting Association (Qld) Inc was a dispute between a karting competitor and the association that governs the sport in Queensland. The applicant sought a declaration that a resolution made by the respondent association, which refused to accept his entry into a race, was invalid. The respondent argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere in the internal management of the association. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The key legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Court had jurisdiction to review the internal management decisions of an incorporated association, and whether the applicant had standing to bring the action. The Tribunal considered whether the fact that the association was incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Qld) was sufficient to make the resolution justiciable. The Tribunal also examined whether the resolution had an impact on the applicant’s livelihood or reputation.

The Tribunal found that the resolution was a matter of internal management and that the Courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the affairs of voluntary associations. The Tribunal held that the fact that the respondent was incorporated did not make the resolution justiciable. The Tribunal also found that the resolution did not have a significant impact on the applicant’s livelihood or reputation. Therefore, the Tribunal refused the applicant’s request for a declaration and dismissed the proceeding. The Tribunal ordered that the proceeding be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the proceeding be dismissed;

2. That the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.

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:	Kovacic v Australian Karting Association (Qld) Inc [2008] QSC 344
PARTIES:	JAMES KOVACIC by his litigation guardian VALENTINO KOVACIC (applicant) v AUSTRALIAN KARTING ASSOCIATION (QLD) INC (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS 8505 of 2008
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
DELIVERED ON:	22 December 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10, 12 November 2008
JUDGE:	Wilson J
ORDERS:	1. That the proceeding be dismissed; 2. That the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS – INCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS – INTERFERENCE IN INTERNAL MANAGEMENT – GENERALLY – where respondent an incorporated voluntary association which administers sport of karting – where respondent comprised of clubs – where resolution of respondent that clubs refuse to accept applicant’s race entry – where the Courts are reluctant to interfere in the affairs of voluntary associations – whether the fact that the respondent is incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act is enough to make validity of resolution justiciable – whether resolution has impact on applicant’s livelihood or reputation PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – DECLARATIONS – standing to seek declaratory relief – where applicant has standing – where relief refused because issue non-justiciable Associations Incorporation Act 1984 (NSW), s 18 Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Qld), s 2(f), s 26(2) Supreme Court Act1995 (Qld), s 128 Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, cited Australian Workers' Union v Bowen (No 2) (1948) 77 CLR 601, cited Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10, cited Bornecrantz v Queensland Bridge Association Inc [1999] QSC 58, cited Cameron and Others v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358, cited Dickason v Edwards (1910) 10 CLR 243, cited Edgar and Walker v Meade (1916) 23 CLR 29, cited Forster v Jododex Aust Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421, cited Hornby v Narrandera Ex-Servicemen's Club Ltd [2001] NSWSC 235, cited Maloney v New South Wales Coursing Association Ltd (1978) 1 NSWLR 161, cited McClelland v Burning Palms Surf Life Saving Club (2002) 191 ALR 759, cited Mutasa v AG [1980] QB 114, cited Rose v Boxing New South Wales Inc [2007] NSWSC 20, cited Samuel v St George Leagues Club Ltd, NSWSC (20 October 1992), unreported judgment, cited University of Technology Sydney v Gerrard [2001] NSWSC 368, cited Wilson v RSL of Australia (Qld Branch) [2006] QSC 376
COUNSEL:	PD Dunning SC and CA Johnstone for the applicant SJ Carius for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Levitt Robinson for the applicant Slater & Gordon for the respondent