SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Nona & Anor v Barnes & Anor [2012] QCA 346
PARTIES:
GEORGE NONA
(first appellant)
LILY-ANNIE AHMAT
(second appellant)
v
MICHAEL BARNES
(first respondent)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(second respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 2424 of 2012
SC No 8503 of 2011DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
7 December 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
9 August 2012
JUDGES:
Fraser JA, Philippides and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Leave to the parties to make submissions as to the costs of the appeal in accordance with paragraph 52 of Practice Direction No 2 of 2010 in the event that the parties do not file a consent order before the expiration of the time specified in that paragraph.
CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – MEANING OF DECISION – PARTICULAR CASES – where appellants’ brother was one of several people who died when a vessel was lost in Torres Strait – where appellants were represented at inquest conducted by respondent, the State Coroner – where inquest found loss of vessel and deaths “totally avoidable disaster” caused by people failing to carry out duties over many months – where respondent did not refer matter to Director of Public Prosecutions – where s 48(2) of Coroners Act 2003 requires coroner to refer matter to Director of Public Prosecutions if reasonably suspects a person has committed an indictable offence – where appellants, once aware of no referral, enquired about decision not to refer to Director of Public Prosecutions and requested Coroner discharge duty to consider whether to refer – where Coroner responded that no basis on which to make referral and refused to provide reasons for that conclusion – where appellants argued that primary judge erred in holding that Coroner’s “conclusion” prior to manifestation in correspondence or otherwise did not amount to a decision under Judicial Review Act 1991 – where appellants argued Coroner’s “conclusion” was a “determination” or the refusal of a “determination” – where appellants argued Coroner’s conclusion should be regarded as affecting legal rights or obligations because a contrary conclusion would have created a legal obligation in Coroner to give information to Director of Public Prosecutions – where Attorney-General argued primary judge’s decision correct as Coroner’s conclusion did not affect or give rise to any legal rights or obligations – whether Coroner’s conclusion a “decision” to which the Judicial Review Act 1991 applied – whether Coroner required to provide reasons
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – EXCLUDED DECISIONS – OTHER DECISIONS – where Attorney-General argued that entitlement to reasons for decision excluded by s 31 of Judicial Review Act 1991 – whether appellants’ entitlement to reasons excluded
Coroners Act 2003 (Qld), s 45(5), s 48(2)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 4, s 31
Continue reading Nona v Barnes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Nona & Anor v Barnes & Anor [2012] QCA 346
- Case
- [2012] QCA 346
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellants argued that the primary judge erred in holding that the Coroner's conclusion prior to manifestation in correspondence or otherwise did not amount to a decision under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (the Act). They argued the Coroner's conclusion was a "determination" or the refusal of a "determination". The appellants argued the Coroner's conclusion should be regarded as affecting legal rights or obligations because a contrary conclusion would have created a legal obligation in the Coroner to give information to the DPP. The Attorney-General argued the primary judge's decision was correct as the Coroner's conclusion did not affect or give rise to any legal rights or obligations. The Attorney-General also argued the entitlement to reasons for decision was excluded by section 31 of the Act.
The Court held the Coroner's conclusion was not a decision under the Act and the Coroner was not required to provide reasons for that conclusion. The Court held the Coroner's conclusion was not a decision as it did not affect or give rise to any legal rights or obligations. The Court held the Coroner's conclusion was not a determination or the refusal of a determination. The Court held the entitlement to reasons for decision was excluded by section 31 of the Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Leave to the parties to make submissions as to the costs of the appeal in accordance with paragraph 52 of Practice Direction No 2 of 2010 in the event that the parties do not file a consent order before the expiration of the time specified in that paragraph.
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.