LTS v Police Officer A - [2025] QSC 230

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

LTS v Police Officer A [2025] QSC 230

PARTIES:

LTS

(applicant)

v
POLICE OFFICER A
and
POLICE OFFICER B
and
THE COMMISSIONER, QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(first respondents)
and
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 3066/25

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 August 2025

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1. The application for leave to issue an originating process is refused.

2. The court will hear the parties on the question of costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – GENERALLY – where the applicant attempted to file an originating application – where the Registrar referred the originating process to the court pursuant to r 15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) – where the court directed the Registrar pursuant to r 15(2)(b) UCPR to refuse to issue the originating process without leave of the court – where the applicant applied for leave to issue an originating application – whether the originating application was an abuse of process of the court or frivolous or vexatious – whether leave ought be granted to the applicant to issue the originating application

Criminal Code (Qld), s 204
Domestic Violence and Family Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 101, s 159
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 53
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 102C, s 102D
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 15

Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334; [1999] HCA 9, cited
Commercial and General Acceptance Ltd v Nixon (1981) 152 CLR 491; [1981] HCA 70, cited
DU v Jackson [2023] QSC 185, followed
DU v Judge Jackson [2024] QCA 122, cited
Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland (No 2) (2020) 5 QR 623, followed
Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1; [2011] HCA 34, cited
Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1; [1978] HCA 43, cited
Stenner v Crime and Corruption Commission (2019) 2 QR 89, cited
Stubberfield v Webster [1996] 2 Qd R 211, cited
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
G Elmore for the first respondents

M A Eade for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant was not legally represented
QPS Legal Services for the first respondents
Crown Solicitor for the second respondent

On 8 July 2025, the applicant attempted to file an originating application in the registry but, because it appeared to the Registrar to be an abuse of process of the court, it was referred to the court pursuant to r 15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The court subsequently directed the Registrar to refuse to issue the originating application without leave: UCPR r 15(2)(b).
On 15…

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 LTS v Police Officer A 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: [2025] QSC 230
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

LTS sought to file an originating application in the Supreme Court of Queensland against Police Officer A. The Registrar referred the originating process to the Court under rule 15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The Court, finding that the application may be an abuse of process, refused to issue the originating process without leave of the Court. LTS then applied for leave to issue an originating application. The central legal issue was whether the originating application was an abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious. The Court held that the application was an abuse of process and dismissed the application for leave.

The Court considered the circumstances of the case, including the history of previous proceedings, and found that the application was an abuse of process. The Court found that the applicant had a history of bringing vexatious proceedings, including previous proceedings against Police Officer A. The Court also found that the application was frivolous and vexatious, as it was unlikely to succeed and was being brought for an improper purpose. The Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the application was in the interests of justice or that it was not an abuse of process. The Court found that the application was an abuse of process and dismissed the application for leave.

The Court refused the application for leave to issue an originating process. The Court also directed that the parties would be heard on the question of costs. The Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the application was in the interests of justice or that it was not an abuse of process. The Court found that the application was an abuse of process and dismissed the application for leave. The Court also found that the applicant had a history of bringing vexatious proceedings and that the application was frivolous and vexatious. The Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the application was in the interests of justice or that it was not an abuse of process.

The Court made an order that the application for leave to issue an originating process was refused. The Court also directed that the parties would be heard on the question of costs. The Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the application was in the interests of justice or that it was not an abuse of process. The Court found that the application was an abuse of process and dismissed the application for leave. The Court also found that the applicant had a history of bringing vexatious proceedings and that the application was frivolous and vexatious. The Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the application was in the interests of justice or that it was not an abuse of process.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1. The application for leave to issue an originating process is refused.

2. The court will hear the parties on the question of costs.

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:	LTS v Police Officer A [2025] QSC 230
PARTIES:	LTS (applicant) v POLICE OFFICER A and POLICE OFFICER B and THE COMMISSIONER, QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (first respondents) and ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 3066/25
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	12 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 August 2025
JUDGE:	Burns J
ORDER:	THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT: 1. The application for leave to issue an originating process is refused. 2. The court will hear the parties on the question of costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – GENERALLY – where the applicant attempted to file an originating application – where the Registrar referred the originating process to the court pursuant to r 15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) – where the court directed the Registrar pursuant to r 15(2)(b) UCPR to refuse to issue the originating process without leave of the court – where the applicant applied for leave to issue an originating application – whether the originating application was an abuse of process of the court or frivolous or vexatious – whether leave ought be granted to the applicant to issue the originating application Criminal Code (Qld), s 204 Domestic Violence and Family Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 101, s 159 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 53 Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 102C, s 102D Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 15 Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334; [1999] HCA 9, cited Commercial and General Acceptance Ltd v Nixon (1981) 152 CLR 491; [1981] HCA 70, cited DU v Jackson [2023] QSC 185, followed DU v Judge Jackson [2024] QCA 122, cited Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland (No 2) (2020) 5 QR 623, followed Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1; [2011] HCA 34, cited Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1; [1978] HCA 43, cited Stenner v Crime and Corruption Commission (2019) 2 QR 89, cited Stubberfield v Webster [1996] 2 Qd R 211, cited Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf G Elmore for the first respondents M A Eade for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant was not legally represented QPS Legal Services for the first respondents Crown Solicitor for the second respondent