Owen v Menzies - [2010] QCA 137

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Owen v Menzies & Ors [2010] QCA 137

PARTIES:

RON OWEN
(applicant/appellant)
v
RICHELLE MENZIES
(first respondent/respondent)
TINA JOY COUTTS
(second respondent/respondent)
RHONDA BRUCE
(third respondent/respondent)
SUZANNE MARGARET TURNER
(fourth respondent/respondent)
WOMEN 2 WOMEN
(fifth respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 13824 of 2009
Appeal No 13825 of 2009
SC No 10395 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

8 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 June 2010

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Holmes and Muir JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

The appeals and the application to amend the Notices of Appeal be dismissed, with costs

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PLEADING – GENERALLY – appellant appealed against a decision of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal – appellant sought to rely on large amount of material – primary judge ordered that specified documents be returned to the appellant and that his submissions be condensed – whether primary judge acted without power in removing the appellant’s documents from the Court files – whether primary judge erred in "limiting the pleadings" of the appellant and by "not limiting the other parties'" pleadings

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE – IN GENERAL – primary judge treated the appeal from the Tribunal as an appeal – whether primary judge should have heard the matter "de novo"

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 217 (Repealed)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 367

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 39, cited
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27, cited
Hamilton v Oades (1989) 166 CLR 486; [1989] HCA 21, cited
Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club (Unreported, Chancery Division, 5 February 1988), cited
Malaxetxebarria v State of Queensland[2007] QCA 132, cited
R v Pettigrew [1997] 1 Qd R 601; [1996] QCA 235, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf
S J Hamlyn-Harris for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf
Caxton Legal Centre Inc for the respondent

MUIR JA: The appellant appealed against the decision of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal constituted by Mr Rangiah, upholding a complaint by the first, second and third respondents of unlawful vilification on the grounds of sexuality, in contravention of s 124A(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) and ordering that he pay each of these respondents compensation (Appeal Number 10395 of 2008). He appealed also against an order of the Tribunal that he pay the costs of the successful complainants (Appeal Number 100 of 2009). The third respondent appealed against the decision of the Tribunal dismissing her complaint against the appellant of unlawful vilification (Appeal Number 10487 of 2009).

The three appeals…

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.

Continue reading Owen v Menzies

Details

AGLC: Owen v Menzies [2010] QCA 137
Case: [2010] QCA 137
Decision Date: 8 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Owen, appealed a decision of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, arguing that the primary judge had acted without power when ordering that specified documents be returned and that the appellant's submissions be condensed. The appellant sought to rely on a large amount of material in his appeal, which led to the primary judge's decision to streamline the submissions. The court was tasked with determining whether the primary judge's actions were proper and whether there was any error in the handling of the pleadings of both parties.

The legal issues before the court included whether the primary judge had the authority to remove the appellant's documents from the court files and whether the primary judge erred by limiting the appellant's pleadings while not imposing the same restrictions on the other parties. Additionally, the court considered whether the primary judge should have heard the appeal de novo, given the extensive amount of evidence and submissions presented.

The court found that the primary judge had the power to manage the case in an efficient manner, particularly in light of the volume of material presented. The court held that there was no error in the primary judge's decision to order the return of the documents and to condense the submissions, as this was within the judge's discretion to manage the proceedings. Furthermore, the court determined that the primary judge did not act improperly by limiting the appellant's pleadings while not imposing the same restrictions on the other parties, as the primary judge was within their discretion to manage the case. The court also concluded that the primary judge did not err in treating the matter as an appeal rather than hearing it de novo, given the nature of the appeal process.

The appeals and the application to amend the Notices of Appeal were dismissed, with costs awarded against the appellant. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the decision of the primary judge in managing the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeals and the application to amend the Notices of Appeal be dismissed, with costs

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:	Owen v Menzies & Ors [2010] QCA 137
PARTIES:	RON OWEN (applicant/appellant) v RICHELLE MENZIES (first respondent/respondent) TINA JOY COUTTS (second respondent/respondent) RHONDA BRUCE (third respondent/respondent) SUZANNE MARGARET TURNER (fourth respondent/respondent) WOMEN 2 WOMEN (fifth respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 13824 of 2009 Appeal No 13825 of 2009 SC No 10395 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	8 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 June 2010
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and Holmes and Muir JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	The appeals and the application to amend the Notices of Appeal be dismissed, with costs
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PLEADING – GENERALLY – appellant appealed against a decision of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal – appellant sought to rely on large amount of material – primary judge ordered that specified documents be returned to the appellant and that his submissions be condensed – whether primary judge acted without power in removing the appellant’s documents from the Court files – whether primary judge erred in "limiting the pleadings" of the appellant and by "not limiting the other parties'" pleadings APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE – IN GENERAL – primary judge treated the appeal from the Tribunal as an appeal – whether primary judge should have heard the matter "de novo" Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 217 (Repealed) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 367 Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 39, cited Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27, cited Hamilton v Oades (1989) 166 CLR 486; [1989] HCA 21, cited Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club (Unreported, Chancery Division, 5 February 1988), cited Malaxetxebarria v State of Queensland[2007] QCA 132, cited R v Pettigrew [1997] 1 Qd R 601; [1996] QCA 235, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf S J Hamlyn-Harris for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf Caxton Legal Centre Inc for the respondent