Parkinson v Holden - [2010] QSC 90

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Parkinson & Anor v Holden [2010] QSC 90

PARTIES:

BRYAN PARKINSON and BARBARA PARKINSON
(applicants)
v
COLIN HOLDEN
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS4944 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for statutory order of review

DELIVERED ON:

31 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 December 2009

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - GENERALLY – where the respondent made a decision under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld) to decline the applicants’ application for exit assistance under an approved assistance scheme – where applicants claim they were denied the opportunity by the respondent to comment on new material that was considered by the respondent – whether the applicants were denied natural justice – whether new material was information that was adverse to the applicants that was credible, relevant and significant

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – BIAS – APPREHENSION OF BIAS – where respondent exercised a statutory decision-making power – whether conduct of the respondent caused reasonable apprehension of bias to a reasonable observer – whether respondent should have disqualified himself from making a decision – whether it was necessary for the respondent to make the decision

Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994, s 8, s 13A, s 32, s 35, s 54
Vegetation Management Act 1999, s 3

Ambrey v Oswin [2005] QCA 112, considered
Cooney v Holden [2007] QSC 53, considered
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337, considered
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, considered
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 71,
McDonald v Holden [2007] QSC 54, considered
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507, considered
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982, considered

COUNSEL:

J Fenton for the applicants
PG Bickford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crowley Greenhalgh for the applicants
McCullough Robertson for the respondent

The respondent who is a public servant is the chief executive officer of the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority (QRAA). In a decision communicated to the applicants in his letter dated 14 April 2009, the respondent affirmed a decision made by the QRAA on 27 January 2009 to decline exit assistance under the Queensland Vegetation Management Framework for Financial Assistance for Farm Businesses Exit Assistance Scheme dated 1 July 2004 (the scheme) in respect of the property known as the Humeburn aggregation (the property) comprising 99,350 hectares which is owned by the applicants. The applicants filed an application for statutory order of review of the decision on 12 May 2009. The grounds of review that are pursued by the applicants are denial of natural justice, error of law and apprehended bias.

Background

The applicants, by their agent Devine Agribusiness (Devine), made an application on 22 December 2005 for exit assistance under the scheme. Although the applicants own the property,…

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 Parkinson 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: [2010] QSC 90
Decision Date: 31 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Parkinson v Holden, the applicants sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, who was acting under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld), to decline their application for exit assistance under an approved assistance scheme. The applicants contended that they were not afforded procedural fairness in the decision-making process, as they were not given the opportunity to comment on new material that the respondent considered. They further argued that the new material was adverse to them and was credible, relevant, and significant.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants were denied natural justice by not being given the chance to respond to the new material, and if the conduct of the respondent gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The applicants argued that the failure to provide them with an opportunity to comment on the new material denied them procedural fairness and constituted a breach of natural justice. They also claimed that the conduct of the respondent in considering the new material without their input caused a reasonable apprehension of bias in a reasonable observer.

The court examined the principles of natural justice and the apprehension of bias in the context of the statutory decision-making power exercised by the respondent. It found that the applicants had not been denied procedural fairness as they were given the opportunity to comment on the new material in question. The court also determined that the conduct of the respondent did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and it was not necessary for the respondent to disqualify himself from making the decision. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the decision of the respondent to decline the applicants' application for exit assistance under the approved assistance scheme was upheld.

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:	Parkinson & Anor v Holden [2010] QSC 90
PARTIES:	BRYAN PARKINSON and BARBARA PARKINSON (applicants) v COLIN HOLDEN (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS4944 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for statutory order of review
DELIVERED ON:	31 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 December 2009
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - GENERALLY – where the respondent made a decision under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld) to decline the applicants’ application for exit assistance under an approved assistance scheme – where applicants claim they were denied the opportunity by the respondent to comment on new material that was considered by the respondent – whether the applicants were denied natural justice – whether new material was information that was adverse to the applicants that was credible, relevant and significant ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – BIAS – APPREHENSION OF BIAS – where respondent exercised a statutory decision-making power – whether conduct of the respondent caused reasonable apprehension of bias to a reasonable observer – whether respondent should have disqualified himself from making a decision – whether it was necessary for the respondent to make the decision Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994, s 8, s 13A, s 32, s 35, s 54 Vegetation Management Act 1999, s 3 Ambrey v Oswin [2005] QCA 112, considered Cooney v Holden [2007] QSC 53, considered Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337, considered Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, considered Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 71, McDonald v Holden [2007] QSC 54, considered Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507, considered Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982, considered
COUNSEL:	J Fenton for the applicants PG Bickford for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crowley Greenhalgh for the applicants McCullough Robertson for the respondent