Mowen v Queensland State Government - [2011] QSC 12

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mowen v Queensland State Government [2011] QSC 12

PARTIES:

BEVAN ALAN MOWEN

Applicant

V

QUEENSLAND STATE GOVERNMENT

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

s703/2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

3 February 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

31 January 2011

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Whether Applicant has interests in the nature of proprietary, material, financial or special interest[s] in the subject matter of the proceeding so as to give him standing

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS – Whether the sale of Queensland Rail is justicable

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – STATES - Whether Court has the power to issue a mandatory injunction requiring the State government to call a referendum

Australia Act 1986 (Cth) s2(1)

Crown Proceedings Act 1980 (Qld) s8

Transport Infrastructure (Railways) Act 1991 (Qld) s2.4

Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) s1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B & 53

Constitution of Queensland 2001 Preamble & s58

Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493

Crowther v Brisbane City Council [2010] QCA 348

Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria (2002) 211 CLR 1

Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1

COUNSEL:

Applicant in person

Ex parte

SOLICITORS:

Applicant in person

Ex parte

[1] McMEEKIN J: Mr Mowen applies for an injunction. He appears in person. The named respondent is the “Queensland State Government”. The application is brought ex parte. The purpose of the proposed injunction is to force the government of this State to hold a referendum of the people to enquire into the recent sale of Queensland Rail.

[2] Mr Mowen’s concerns relate principally to public safety and what he perceives as the failure of the government to consult either Her Majesty or the people in effecting the sale of a significant public asset, a sale which, he says, has increased the number of deaths on our public roads. That is so, Mr Mowen submits, because the sale of Queensland Rail means that more freight must be moved by road than previously and that has the effect of bringing onto our public roads an increased number of larger vehicles – he is particularly concerned with the use of “B Double” semi-trailers – at a time when those public roads have not been engineered to cope with such large vehicles. He has gathered evidence of the number of fatalities caused by such large vehicles and referred me to studies done in New South Wales concerning the over representation of such vehicles in fatal accidents.

[3] Further Mr Mowen submits that the statute governing Queensland Rail makes no provision for its sale. He referred me to s 2.4 of the Transport Infrastructure (Railways) Act 1991 (Qld) which details the powers of Queensland Rail and pointed out that there is no mention there of any ability to sell Queensland Rail itself but rather mention is made in s 2.4(c) of partnerships and joint ventures.

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 Mowen v Queensland State Government 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: [2011] QSC 12
Decision Date: 3/02/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application by Mowen, an individual, against the Queensland State Government regarding the sale of Queensland Rail. Mowen sought to challenge the sale on the grounds that it would result in the loss of public assets and adversely affect the public interest. The court had to determine whether Mowen had the necessary standing to bring the proceeding and whether the sale of Queensland Rail was a matter that could be judicially reviewed. Additionally, Mowen sought a mandatory injunction requiring the State government to call a referendum on the matter, raising questions about the power of the Court to intervene in constitutional amendments concerning the states.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mowen had the requisite proprietary, material, financial, or special interest in the subject matter to establish standing. The court had to examine the nature of the interest that Mowen claimed and whether it was sufficient to confer standing. Furthermore, the court considered the distinction between administrative and judicial functions and whether the sale of Queensland Rail fell within the justiciable domain. Lastly, the court had to determine whether it had the power to issue a mandatory injunction to compel the State government to call a referendum, which would involve interfering with a constitutional amendment concerning the states.

The court found that Mowen did not have the necessary proprietary, material, financial, or special interest to establish standing in the proceeding. The court held that Mowen's interest was too speculative and indirect to confer standing. The court also found that the sale of Queensland Rail did not fall within the justiciable domain, as it involved an administrative decision that was not subject to judicial review. Additionally, the court held that it did not have the power to issue a mandatory injunction requiring the State government to call a referendum, as this would interfere with the constitutional amendment process concerning the states.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed. The court held that Mowen did not have the necessary standing to bring the proceeding, and the sale of Queensland Rail was not a matter that could be judicially reviewed. Furthermore, the court found that it did not have the power to issue a mandatory injunction requiring the State government to call a referendum.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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:	Mowen v Queensland State Government [2011] QSC 12
PARTIES:	BEVAN ALAN MOWEN Applicant V QUEENSLAND STATE GOVERNMENT Respondent
FILE NO/S:	s703/2010
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	3 February 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	31 January 2011
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Whether Applicant has interests in the nature of proprietary, material, financial or special interest[s] in the subject matter of the proceeding so as to give him standing ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS – Whether the sale of Queensland Rail is justicable CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – STATES - Whether Court has the power to issue a mandatory injunction requiring the State government to call a referendum Australia Act 1986 (Cth) s2(1) Crown Proceedings Act 1980 (Qld) s8 Transport Infrastructure (Railways) Act 1991 (Qld) s2.4 Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) s1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B & 53 Constitution of Queensland 2001 Preamble & s58 Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 Crowther v Brisbane City Council [2010] QCA 348 Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria (2002) 211 CLR 1 Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1
COUNSEL:	Applicant in person Ex parte
SOLICITORS:	Applicant in person Ex parte