Lyons v State of Queensland - [2016] HCATrans 60

[2016] HCATrans 060

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B56 of 2015

B e t w e e n -
GAYE PRUDENCE LYONS
Applicant
and
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

KIEFEL J
NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM BRISBANE BY VIDEO LINK TO ADELAIDE

ON FRIDAY, 11 MARCH 2016, AT 11.35 AM

MS K.T. NOMCHONG, SC: Your Honours, I appear with my learned friend, MR B.E. FOGARTY, for the applicant. (instructed by Australian Centre for Disability Law)

MR P.J. DUNNING, QC, Solicitor‑General of the State of Queensland: May it please the Court, with my learned friend, MS K.A. MELLIFONT, QC, for the respondent. (instructed by Crown Law (Qld)

KIEFEL J: You may need to speak up, Mr Solicitor, or bring the microphone towards you.

MR DUNNING: Thank you, your Honour. Is that better?

KIEFEL J: Yes, it is. Thank you.

MR DUNNING: Thank you.

KIEFEL J: Yes, Ms Nomchong.

MS NOMCHONG: Thank you. Your Honours, this is a matter which we say attracts the grant of special leave because it involves a significant public interest. Discrimination legislation such as the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991 has, as its principal focus, equality in the participation of civil and political and community activities.

In the preamble to the Act, one can see that the Queensland Parliament relied on international treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These treaties stipulate the manner in which human rights of people with disabilities ought be promoted and how adjustments ought be made in our communities to ensure an equal participation for people with disabilities and the way they are to be enjoyed.

KIEFEL J: I think you could take it that we appreciate this. Given the time constraints that you are under, it might be as well to get straight to the issues for special leave.

MS NOMCHONG: I will, your Honour. Your Honour, the heart of this claim is, of course, how the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991 can be construed harmoniously and effectively so that it works in conjunction with the Jury Act and the Oaths Act. It is of critical importance to the appellant who is deaf but wants to actively participate in our community by being able to be considered for jury service, but it has a wider implication of course because section 4(3) of the Jury Act makes reference to any person with mental or physical disabilities.

The errors that we say enliven and would attract the grant of special leave in this matter are threefold; the first is the erroneous finding at the Tribunal, the appeal panel and of course by the Court of Appeal that the Deputy Registrar did no more than make a simple application of section 4(3)(l). Rather, the correct finding ought to have been that what the Deputy Registrar did…

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 Lyons v State of Queensland 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: [2016] HCATrans 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Lyons v State of Queensland* concerned a dispute between Mr Lyons and the State of Queensland. The matter came before the High Court of Australia, constituted by Kiefel and Nettle JJ.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the State of Queensland owed a duty of care to Mr Lyons in relation to the alleged failure to provide adequate medical treatment while he was in custody. This involved considering the scope of the duty of care owed by the State to persons in its custody and the circumstances under which such a duty might be breached.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the established principles of negligence, particularly the duty of care owed by a custodian to those in their charge. Their Honours considered the foreseeability of harm and the reasonableness of the steps taken, or not taken, by the State. The Court analysed the evidence presented to determine if the State's actions or omissions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable custodian in the circumstances, thereby causing Mr Lyons' alleged injuries.

The High Court dismissed the appeal.

Orders