Markan v Queensland Police Service - [2015] QCA 22

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Markan v Queensland Police Service [2015] QCA 22

PARTIES:

PETER MARKAN
(appellant)
v
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6892 of 2014
SC No 4836 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2015

JUDGES:

Holmes and Fraser JJA and Jackson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal assessed on an indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – CONTEMPT, ATTACHMENT AND SEQUESTRATION – SCANDALISING COURTS AND JUDGES – where the appellant alleged three Court of Appeal judges were impersonators and committing human and civil rights abuses – where the appellant sought an investigation and prosecution of three Court of Appeal judges – where the appellant’s claims and relief was struck out – where the appellant appealed against such orders – whether the appellant’s actions constitute contempt

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – CONTEMPT, ATTACHMENT AND SEQUESTRATION – POWER OF COURT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT – SUPREME COURT – GENERALLY – where the appellant sought extraordinary relief from the respondent’s failure to investigate and prosecute three Court of Appeal judges – whether the trial judge was correct in striking out the appellant’s claims

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS – where the appellant made baseless and scandalous allegations of three Court of Appeal judges – whether the appellant’s claims were frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process

PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where the appellant made baseless and scandalous accusations of three Court of Appeal judges – whether indemnity costs against the appellant are justified

Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 2.1, s 4.8
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 135(1), r 171, r 389A, r 703(1), r 766(1)(d), r 771
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), s 5

AIG Australia Ltd v Jaques (No 2) [2015] VSCA 3, cited
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27, followed
Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; [1993] FCA 801, followed
Gallagher v Durack (1983) 152 CLR 238; [1983] HCA 2, referred to
Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd v SST Consulting Pty Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 75; [2009] HCA 43, followed
LPD Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor v Phillips, Hickey and Toigo& Ors[2013] QCA 305, cited
Markan v Crime and Misconduct Commission[2014] QCA 60, cited
Metropolitan Bank Ltd v Pooley (1885) 10 App Cas 210, cited
Re Glew; Ex parte Attorney-General (WA) [2014] WASC 107, cited
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34, followed

COUNSEL:

The appellant…

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 Markan v Queensland Police Service 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: [2015] QCA 22
Decision Date: 27 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Markan v Queensland Police Service, the appellant, Markan, brought an appeal against the Queensland Supreme Court's decision to strike out his claims and order him to pay costs on an indemnity basis. Markan alleged that three Court of Appeal judges were impersonators and engaged in human and civil rights abuses. He sought an investigation and prosecution of these judges. The Supreme Court found his claims to be baseless and scandalous, striking them out and ordering him to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's actions constituted contempt of court. The court had to determine if the appellant's claims and the relief sought were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. Furthermore, the court needed to decide if the trial judge correctly exercised the court's inherent jurisdiction to strike out the appellant's claims and award costs on an indemnity basis.

The court held that the appellant's claims were baseless and scandalous, constituting an abuse of the court's process. The allegations against the judges were entirely without merit, and the appellant's conduct was seen as an attempt to undermine the integrity of the judicial system. The court found that the trial judge was correct in striking out the appellant's claims and ordering him to pay costs on an indemnity basis due to the nature of the claims and the appellant's conduct.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal assessed on an indemnity basis. This decision reinforced the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and the court's power to manage and control litigation that is deemed to be an abuse of process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal assessed on an indemnity 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:	Markan v Queensland Police Service [2015] QCA 22
PARTIES:	PETER MARKAN (appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6892 of 2014 SC No 4836 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 February 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 February 2015
JUDGES:	Holmes and Fraser JJA and Jackson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal assessed on an indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – CONTEMPT, ATTACHMENT AND SEQUESTRATION – SCANDALISING COURTS AND JUDGES – where the appellant alleged three Court of Appeal judges were impersonators and committing human and civil rights abuses – where the appellant sought an investigation and prosecution of three Court of Appeal judges – where the appellant’s claims and relief was struck out – where the appellant appealed against such orders – whether the appellant’s actions constitute contempt PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – CONTEMPT, ATTACHMENT AND SEQUESTRATION – POWER OF COURT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT – SUPREME COURT – GENERALLY – where the appellant sought extraordinary relief from the respondent’s failure to investigate and prosecute three Court of Appeal judges – whether the trial judge was correct in striking out the appellant’s claims PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS – where the appellant made baseless and scandalous allegations of three Court of Appeal judges – whether the appellant’s claims were frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where the appellant made baseless and scandalous accusations of three Court of Appeal judges – whether indemnity costs against the appellant are justified Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 2.1, s 4.8 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 135(1), r 171, r 389A, r 703(1), r 766(1)(d), r 771 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), s 5 AIG Australia Ltd v Jaques (No 2) [2015] VSCA 3, cited Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27, followed Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; [1993] FCA 801, followed Gallagher v Durack (1983) 152 CLR 238; [1983] HCA 2, referred to Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd v SST Consulting Pty Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 75; [2009] HCA 43, followed LPD Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor v Phillips, Hickey and Toigo& Ors[2013] QCA 305, cited Markan v Crime and Misconduct Commission[2014] QCA 60, cited Metropolitan Bank Ltd v Pooley (1885) 10 App Cas 210, cited Re Glew; Ex parte Attorney-General (WA) [2014] WASC 107, cited Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34, followed
COUNSEL:	The appellant…