DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Manikis & Anor v Byrne & Anor [2021] QDC 185
PARTIES:
JOHN MANIKIS and PAMELA MANIKIS
(Appellants)
v
ANDREW JOHN BYRNE
(First Respondent)
and
JOSHUA MICHAEL McPHERSON(Second Respondent)
FILE NO:
504 of 2021
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
13 August 2021
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3 August 2021
JUDGE:
Farr SC, DCJ
ORDER:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The acting Magistrate’s order of 12 February 2021 is set aside.
3. The application for an instalment order is dismissed.
4. The Magistrate’s order of 30 April 2021 is set aside.
5. Unless there are submissions to the contrary, the first respondent pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellants obtained summary judgment against the first respondent in the amount of $97,487.66 (the judgment sum) – where an enforcement warrant was then issued to the appellants for the sale of property owned by the first respondent – where the acting Magistrate made an order which allowed the first respondent to pay the judgment sum in instalments pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (“UCPR”) r 868 – where the first respondent sought the making of an order to set aside the enforcement warrant – where another Magistrate then made an order for the enforcement warrant to be returned to the registry despite the appellants’ objection thereto – whether the acting Magistrate erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for the decision to grant the instalment order – whether the acting Magistrate erred in law by failing to take into account the mandatory requirements of UCPR r 869(1) when considering whether to make an instalment order – whether the acting Magistrate erred in law by failing to properly exercise his discretion in making the instalment order – whether the Magistrate acted in excess of jurisdiction when making an order for the return of the enforcement warrant, and thereby erred in law – whether the Magistrate denied the appellants natural justice and procedural fairness by giving them no opportunity to be heard by the court before an order to return the enforcement warrant was made, and thereby erred in law
LEGISLATION:
CASES:
Alchin v Daley [2009] NSWCA 418, considered
Bode v Commissioner of Police [2018] QCA 186 , applied
Dart & Anor v Singer & Ors [2014] QSC 316, considered
Hellier Capital Pty Ltd v Richard Albarran [2009] NSWSC 403, considered
Jakeman Constructions Pty Ltd v Boshoff [2014] QCA 354, considered
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship,Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v AAM17 (2021) 388 ALR 257; [2021] HCA 6, applied
Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22, applied
Sunland Group Ltd v Townsville City Council [2012] QCA 30, appliedCOUNSEL: S W Trewavas for the appellants
M…
Continue reading Manikis v Byrne
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Manikis v Byrne [2021] QDC 185
- Case
- [2021] QDC 185
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the acting Magistrate adequately exercised his discretion in granting the instalment order, and if the second Magistrate erred in law by setting aside the enforcement warrant without allowing the Manikis to be heard. The court found that the acting Magistrate’s reasons were inadequate, as they did not allow the court to understand how the decision was reached. The court held that the failure to provide sufficient reasons amounted to an error of law. Furthermore, the court found that the second Magistrate acted in excess of jurisdiction and breached natural justice by setting aside the enforcement warrant without hearing the Manikis, thus also committing an error of law.
The court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, setting aside both the acting Magistrate’s order granting instalments and the second Magistrate’s order returning the enforcement warrant to the registry. The application for an instalment order was dismissed, and Byrne was ordered to pay the Manikis’ costs of the appeal, unless there were submissions to the contrary. This decision underscores the importance of providing adequate reasons for judicial decisions and the necessity of procedural fairness in court proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The acting Magistrate’s order of 12 February 2021 is set aside.
3. The application for an instalment order is dismissed.
4. The Magistrate’s order of 30 April 2021 is set aside.
5. Unless there are submissions to the contrary, the first respondent pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal 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
Finally, the first defendant submits that even if reasons were required but could not be gleaned from the transcript and are therefore found to be inadequate, this is nevertheless not a case in which it can be inferred from an absence of reasons that the court did not have regard to the pre-requisite considerations pursuant to UCPR r 869. Consideration The High Court has recently confirmed again that “the duty to give reasons is an inherent aspect of the exercise of judicial power”.[6] The Court described it as a “judicial duty”.[7][6] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship,Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v AAM17 (2021) 388 ALR 257; [2021] HCA 6 at [22].[7] Ibid at [25]. The relevant obligations for a judicial officer to give reasons was considered by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Alchin v Daley[8]:“(i) The giving of adequate reasons lies at the heart of the judicial process, since a failure to provide sufficient reasons can lead to a real sense of grievance because the losing party cannot understand why he or she lost.(ii)While lengthy and elaborate reasons are not required, at a minimum the trial judge’s reasons should be adequate for the exercise of a facility of appeal, where that facility is available.(iii)The extent and content of the reasons will depend on the particular case and the issues under consideration, but it is essential to expose the reasoning on a point critical to the contest between the parties. This may require the judge to refer to evidence which is critical to the proper determination of the issue in dispute.…”[8] [2009] NSWCA 418 at [35], citing Pollard v RRR Corporation [2009] NSWCA 110. The Queensland Court of Appeal considered the requirement to give adequate reasons:(a)In Sunland Group Ltd v Townsville City Council[9] where the Court held:“It was thus incumbent on the primary judge to provide adequate reasons for his conclusions as to the existence and extent of conflict. Failure to give such reasons would be an error of law.”(b)In Jakeman Constructions Pty Ltd v Boshoff[10] where it held:“A failure to give sufficient reasons for an order where reasons are required amounts to an error of law. So much is established by many authorities, including Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd and AL Powell Holdings Pty Ltd v Dick.”[9] [2012] QCA 30 at [36]; the court then expanded on what adequate reasons are, by reference to Drew v Makita(Australia)Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 219.[10] [2014] QCA 354 at [12] and the authorities cited therein. I reject the first respondent’s submission that the acting Magistrate’s reasons can be gleaned from remarks he made during the course of argument at the hearing. His Honour’s comments do not allow me to infer that he considered each of the pre‑requisite requirements listed in UCPR r 869(1)(a)-(f), nor, how he assessed, if in fact he did, each of those matters – particularly, the matter listed in r 869(1)(c) and (f). Furthermore, upon reading the transcript of that proceeding, I am left in the position of not knowing how the acting Magistrate balanced competing considerations, or, whether in fact he conducted such an exercise.