McDonald v. Holden - [2007] QSC 54

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McDonald v Holden [2007] QSC 54

PARTIES:

MR & MRS GA MCDONALD and MR BR MCDONALD (“ROSEVALE PARTNERSHIP”)
(applicants)
v
COLIN HOLDEN as CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
QUEENSLAND RURAL ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS5432 of 2006

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for statutory order of review

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 December 2006

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

1. The decision of the respondent of which notice was given to the applicants by letter dated 5 June 2006 be set aside.

2. The applicants’ application for exit assistance be referred to the respondent to be decided according to the law.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicants seek judicial review of the respondent’s decision to refuse the applicants’ application for exit assistance under the scheme approved under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld) – where the respondent did not take into account the assets of the individual partners in an assessment of the sustainable long-term viability of the applicants’ farm business –whether respondent failed to take into account a relevant consideration

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – where the applicants seek judicial review of the respondent’s decision to refuse the applicants’ application for exit assistance under the scheme approved under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld) – where applicants claim respondent should have given them a reasonable opportunity to be heard on critical adverse material – whether decision made accorded with the rules of procedural fairness

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 27B
Judicial Review Act 1991, s 32
Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994, s 8, s 13A. s 13B, s 13C
Vegetation Management Act 1999, s 3, s 22G
Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, considered
Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576, considered

COUNSEL:

MO Plunkett and J Fenton for the applicants
PG Bickford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crowley Greenhalgh for the applicants
McCullough Robertson for the respondent

MULLINS J: The applicants seek a review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (“JRA”) of the decision of the respondent Mr Colin Holden, the chief executive officer of the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority (“QRAA”), declining an application for assistance under the Queensland Vegetation Management Framework, Financial Assistance for Farm Businesses, Exit Assistance Scheme (“the exit assistance scheme”) which is an approved assistance scheme under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (“the Act”).

The applicants’ application was heard at the same time as that which is the subject of the decision in Cooney v Holden [2007] QSC 53 (“Cooney”). In Cooney I set out the relevant legislation and summarised the provisions of the exit assistance scheme which I also rely on for the purpose of these reasons.

The application under the exit assistance scheme

The…

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 McDonald v. Holden 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: [2007] QSC 54
Decision Date: 15 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McDonald v. Holden, the applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent to refuse their application for exit assistance under a scheme approved by the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld). The applicants argued that the refusal was based on an improper assessment of the sustainable long-term viability of their farm business, as the respondent had failed to consider the assets of the individual partners in making the decision. Additionally, the applicants contended that the decision-making process did not adhere to the principles of procedural fairness, as they were not given a reasonable opportunity to address critical adverse material.

The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had failed to take into account a relevant consideration in assessing the viability of the applicants' farm business and whether the decision-making process complied with the rules of procedural fairness. The applicants argued that the respondent's failure to consider the assets of the individual partners constituted a relevant consideration that was not taken into account, and that the lack of a reasonable opportunity to address critical adverse material resulted in a decision that was procedurally unfair.

The court found that the respondent had indeed failed to take into account a relevant consideration by not assessing the assets of the individual partners in determining the sustainable long-term viability of the applicants' farm business. Furthermore, the court concluded that the decision-making process did not accord with the rules of procedural fairness as the applicants were not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on critical adverse material. As a result, the court set aside the respondent's decision and referred the applicants' application for exit assistance back to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the respondent, which was notified to the applicants by letter dated 5 June 2006, be set aside, and that the applicants' application for exit assistance be referred to the respondent for reconsideration according to the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the respondent of which notice was given to the applicants by letter dated 5 June 2006 be set aside.

2. The applicants’ application for exit assistance be referred to the respondent to be decided according to the law.

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:	McDonald v Holden [2007] QSC 54
PARTIES:	MR & MRS GA MCDONALD and MR BR MCDONALD (“ROSEVALE PARTNERSHIP”) (applicants) v COLIN HOLDEN as CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, QUEENSLAND RURAL ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS5432 of 2006
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for statutory order of review
DELIVERED ON:	15 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 December 2006
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	1. The decision of the respondent of which notice was given to the applicants by letter dated 5 June 2006 be set aside. 2. The applicants’ application for exit assistance be referred to the respondent to be decided according to the law.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicants seek judicial review of the respondent’s decision to refuse the applicants’ application for exit assistance under the scheme approved under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld) – where the respondent did not take into account the assets of the individual partners in an assessment of the sustainable long-term viability of the applicants’ farm business –whether respondent failed to take into account a relevant consideration ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – where the applicants seek judicial review of the respondent’s decision to refuse the applicants’ application for exit assistance under the scheme approved under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld) – where applicants claim respondent should have given them a reasonable opportunity to be heard on critical adverse material – whether decision made accorded with the rules of procedural fairness Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 27B Judicial Review Act 1991, s 32 Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994, s 8, s 13A. s 13B, s 13C Vegetation Management Act 1999, s 3, s 22G Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, considered Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576, considered
COUNSEL:	MO Plunkett and J Fenton for the applicants PG Bickford for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crowley Greenhalgh for the applicants McCullough Robertson for the respondent