Metarock Group Limited v Broadfoot - [2024] QSC 159

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Metarock Group Limited v Broadfoot & Ors [2024] QSC 159

PARTIES:

METAROCK GROUP LIMITED
ACN 142 490 579

(applicant)

v
ANDREW BROADFOOT
(AN INSPECTOR UNDER THE COAL MINING SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 1999)

(first respondent)
AND
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(REPRESENTED BY RESOURCES SAFETY AND HEALTH QUEENSLAND)
(second respondent)
AND
PHILIPPA JAYNE BECKINGSALE
(A MAGISTRATE)
(third respondent)
AND
VINCENTS
(A PARTNERSHIP OF ALLARA VCA TRUST AND OTHERS TRADING UNDER ABN 69 984 359 704)

(fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 6201 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2024

JUDGE:

Copley J

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 48(1)(a)(ii) of the Judicial Review Act 1991, paragraphs 1 and 2(a) of the application for review filed on 15 May 2024 are dismissed.

2. The application for an order for disclosure of the affidavit of the first respondent dated 18 April 2024 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – CERTIORARI – GROUNDS FOR CERTIORARI TO QUASH – where the first respondent and an employee of the second respondent had a warrant under s 136 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) (the Act) to enter the applicant’s office – where the first and fourth respondent made “images” of some 14,000 documents that were identified as likely to be within the scope of the warrant – where the applicant filed an application under s 43 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (JRA) for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision to issue a warrant – where the applicant alternatively seeks a declaration that the warrant is invalid, the seizure under the warrant was unlawful and that the first, second and fourth respondents deliver up all documents and things seizure under the warrant – where the applicant also seeks an order for disclosure of all the material provided to the third respondent when the warrant was issued – where the first and second respondents seeks orders that the application for review is stayed or dismissed pursuant to s 48 of the JRA or set aside pursuant to r 16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 – where the first and second respondents argue that pursuant to s 139(3)(c) and (d) of the Act the first respondent had authority to copy documents found at the workplace independently of any authority conferred by the warrant – where the applicant contends that the first respondent went beyond exercising those powers for the purpose of conducting an investigation under s 139(3)(c) or (d) of the Act – whether disclosure of the affidavit is in the public interest – whether the Court should grant relief in the nature of certiorari or a declaration about the validity of the warrant – whether there is a triable issue in relation to the originating application

Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld), ss 41, 132A, 133, 136,…

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 Metarock Group Limited v Broadfoot 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: [2024] QSC 159
Decision Date: 30 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Metarock Group Limited sought a writ of certiorari and other relief in the Supreme Court of Queensland to challenge the issuance of a warrant under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) and the seizure of documents from its office. The warrant was issued following an incident at the Crinum Mine, where one worker died and another was seriously injured. The warrant allowed the first respondent, an inspector, to enter the applicant's office and seize approximately 14,000 documents. The applicant argued that the warrant was invalid and the seizure unlawful, seeking to have the warrant quashed, a declaration of invalidity, and the return of the seized documents. The applicant also sought disclosure of all materials provided to the third respondent when the warrant was issued.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the warrant was issued correctly under the Act and whether the seizure of documents was lawful. The court needed to determine if the first respondent had the authority to seize documents independently of the warrant or if the warrant was necessary. Another issue was whether the affidavit provided to the third respondent should be disclosed, considering the public interest and the need for transparency in the proceedings.

The court dismissed paragraphs 1 and 2(a) of the application for review, finding that the first and second respondents had the authority to enter and seize documents based on the provisions of the Act. The court held that there was a triable issue concerning the proper construction of the ambit of s 139 of the Act, which would be determined at a final hearing. The application for an order for disclosure of the affidavit was refused as the court found that disclosure was not in the public interest.

The court's decision focused on the statutory authority of the respondents to seize documents and the need for a final hearing to determine the validity of the warrant and the scope of the respondents' powers. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of statutory interpretation and the need for a thorough examination of the relevant provisions of the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 48(1)(a)(ii) of the Judicial Review Act 1991, paragraphs 1 and 2(a) of the application for review filed on 15 May 2024 are dismissed.

2. The application for an order for disclosure of the affidavit of the first respondent dated 18 April 2024 is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

During the course of the hearing counsel for the first and second respondents acknowledged that there may well be triable issues concerning the proper construction of the ambit of s 139 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) such that it would not be appropriate to stay or dismiss or set aside paragraph 2(b) and (c) of the application for review. Paragraph 2(b) and (c) of the application appear at paragraph [1] above as (b)(ii) and (iii). Accordingly, consideration about whether the applicant is entitled to the relief sought in paragraph 2(b) and (c) of the application for review shall be determined at a final hearing. Background The circumstances which led to the application pursuant to s 43 of the Judicial Review Act and the application for an order for disclosure are as follows. On 14 September 2021 an incident occurred at the Crinum Mine, one of a number of coal mines operated by the applicant through a subsidiary, Mastermyne Pty Ltd. One worker died and another was seriously injured. The first respondent, an inspector appointed under the Act and an employee of the second respondent, attended the applicant’s office in Mackay on 23 April 2024 accompanied by other employees of the second respondent and by Mr Hains, an employee of the fourth respondent. The first respondent provided Mr Erwin, the applicant’s General Manager HSEC, with a copy of a warrant and a copy of a document which the first respondent called a notice to occupier. The face of the warrant[1] showed that it purported to be issued under s 136 of the Act. The first respondent informed Mr Erwin that he had a warrant to enter under s 136 and that “its obviously in relation to our ongoing investigation into the incident at Crinum on the 14th of September 2021”.[2][1]Affidavit of Norman Roderick Erwin, exhibit RE1.[2]Affidavit of Andrew Broadfoot affirmed 11 June 2024, paragraph 11. The warrant was addressed to the first respondent. It stated that the third respondent, after hearing an application by the first respondent, was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that there was a particular thing or activity that might provide evidence of an offence against the Act and that the evidence was at, or within the next seven days might be at, an address of the applicant’s subsidiary. It stated that the warrant was for the offence of “Section 41 of the [Act] – Obligations of coal mine operators”. It then recited one of the obligations contained in s 41. The document given to Mr Erwin recorded that the warrant had been issued on 18 April 2024 and that the warrant enabled officers to enter the premises. It recorded that the fourth respondent’s employee was present pursuant to s 139(3)(e) of the Act to assist to “image” the Mastermyne server or a shared drive, Sharepoint facility, Crinum drives, Mr Erwin’s work computer and employee email accounts and ex‑employee email accounts, including those used by three named persons. It also stated that s 139(3)(a), (b), (d) and (f) of the Act would be relied on.[3] [3]Affidavit of Andrew Broadfoot affirmed 11 June 2024, Exhibit AB-2.

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:	Metarock Group Limited v Broadfoot & Ors [2024] QSC 159
PARTIES:	METAROCK GROUP LIMITED ACN 142 490 579 (applicant) v ANDREW BROADFOOT (AN INSPECTOR UNDER THE COAL MINING SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 1999) (first respondent) AND THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (REPRESENTED BY RESOURCES SAFETY AND HEALTH QUEENSLAND) (second respondent) AND PHILIPPA JAYNE BECKINGSALE (A MAGISTRATE) (third respondent) AND VINCENTS (A PARTNERSHIP OF ALLARA VCA TRUST AND OTHERS TRADING UNDER ABN 69 984 359 704) (fourth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 6201 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 July 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 July 2024
JUDGE:	Copley J
ORDERS:	1. *Pursuant to s 48(1)(a)(ii) of the Judicial Review Act 1991, paragraphs 1 and 2(a) of the application for review filed on 15 May 2024 are dismissed.* 2. The application for an order for disclosure of the affidavit of the first respondent dated 18 April 2024 is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – CERTIORARI – GROUNDS FOR CERTIORARI TO QUASH – where the first respondent and an employee of the second respondent had a warrant under s 136 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) (the Act) to enter the applicant’s office – where the first and fourth respondent made “images” of some 14,000 documents that were identified as likely to be within the scope of the warrant – where the applicant filed an application under s 43 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (JRA) for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision to issue a warrant – where the applicant alternatively seeks a declaration that the warrant is invalid, the seizure under the warrant was unlawful and that the first, second and fourth respondents deliver up all documents and things seizure under the warrant – where the applicant also seeks an order for disclosure of all the material provided to the third respondent when the warrant was issued – where the first and second respondents seeks orders that the application for review is stayed or dismissed pursuant to s 48 of the JRA or set aside pursuant to r 16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 – where the first and second respondents argue that pursuant to s 139(3)(c) and (d) of the Act the first respondent had authority to copy documents found at the workplace independently of any authority conferred by the warrant – where the applicant contends that the first respondent went beyond exercising those powers for the purpose of conducting an investigation under s 139(3)(c) or (d) of the Act – whether disclosure of the affidavit is in the public interest – whether the Court should grant relief in the nature of certiorari or a declaration about the validity of the warrant – whether there is a triable issue in relation to the originating application Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld), ss 41, 132A, 133, 136,…