Pyatt v Cheah - [2019] QMC 18

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pyatt v Cheah [2019] QMC 18

PARTIES:

Detective Senior Constable Matthew Stephen Pyatt

(Applicant)

v

Chye Jean Cheah

(Defendant/Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Southport 1421/19

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Civil – Miscellaneous Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Southport

DELIVERED ON:

05 December 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

14 November 2019

MAGISTRATE:

J J Costanzo

ORDER:

TEMPORARY DECLARATION OF PROHIBITED BROTHEL

I make an ORDER pursuant to section 66A (1)(a) of the Prostitution Act 1999 DECLARING that the premises situated at 18/34 Dominions Road, Ashmore, in the State of Queensland, is a ‘prohibited brothel’.

This Temporary declaration is made for a specified period, namely: until 11 December 2019 when I will deliver my Reasons for Judgement, if not sooner. The Application for a Final Order is adjourned to the 11 December 2019, at 9 a.m.

CATCHWORDS:

Prostitution – Whether joint applications for both temporary declaration and final declaration of premises to be a prohibited brothel can be made together in one document.

Prostitution – Temporary Declaration of premises to be a prohibited brothel – Meaning of ‘Prohibited Brothel’ – Exercise of discretion – Standard of proof on the balance of probabilities —

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, ss 14A, 32C, 32CA.

Prostitution Act 1999, ss 65, 66, 66A, 67, 71.

CASES CITED IN THIS JUDGEMENT:

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] ALR 334.

MAN v MAM [2003] QDC 398.

Prostitution Licensing Authority v Neilson [2010] QCA 159.

Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517; [1966] ALR 270.

SOLICITORS:

Sargent Wang for the Applicant Police Officer

Mr Gatenby, Solicitior for the Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT

On 14 November 2019 I made a ‘temporary declaration’ pursuant to s 66A(1)(a) of the Prostitution Act 1999 (the Act) declaring that the premises situated at 18/34 Dominions Road, Ashmore, in the State of Queensland, is a ‘prohibited brothel’.

Pursuant to s 66A(2) of the Act I made the temporary declaration for a specified period, until 11 December 2019, when I would deliver my Reasons for Judgment, if not sooner. The Application for a Final Order was adjourned to 11 December 2019, at 9 a.m.

I now publish herein those reasons for judgment.

The Application

The inelegantly drafted Originating Application, filed in the Magistrates Court at Southport on 29 October 2019, gave notice to the respondent that the applicant was applying to the court for the following orders:

1. A temporary declaration under section 66A(1) of the Prostitution Act 1999 that 18/34 Dominions Road, Ashmore to be (sic) a prohibited brothel.

2. A section 66 declaration under s 66(1) (or s 66(2)) of the Prostitution Act 1999 that 18/34 Dominions Road, Ashmore to be (sic) a prohibited brothel.

Threshold issue raised on strike out application

Mr Gatenby, for the respondent, raised a threshold issue. The respondent sought to have the application struck out, submitting firstly that the application lacks particulars and, secondly, that s 65 of the Act does not permit the two applications to be made at…

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 Pyatt v Cheah

Details

AGLC: Pyatt v Cheah [2019] QMC 18
Case: [2019] QMC 18
Decision Date: 05 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pyatt v Cheah involved a dispute regarding the status of premises located at 18/34 Dominions Road, Ashmore, in Queensland. The primary issue was whether the premises operated as a prohibited brothel and whether a joint application for both temporary and final declarations could be made together in one document. The matter was heard and determined in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicants, Pyatt, sought both a temporary and final declaration that the premises constituted a prohibited brothel under the Prostitution Act 1999.

The court had to decide two significant legal issues. Firstly, whether it was permissible to combine applications for temporary and final declarations in a single document. Secondly, whether the standard of proof required for a temporary declaration was on the balance of probabilities, and if so, whether the evidence met that standard. The court needed to interpret the meaning of ‘prohibited brothel’ and consider the appropriate exercise of discretion in making the declaration.

The court ruled that it was appropriate to consider both the temporary and final declarations in one application, provided that the temporary declaration was made for a limited period. The court determined that the standard of proof for a temporary declaration was indeed on the balance of probabilities. The evidence presented was sufficient to satisfy this standard, leading the court to grant the temporary declaration. The final application was adjourned to allow for further evidence and consideration.

The final order made by the tribunal was a temporary declaration that the premises in question constituted a prohibited brothel until 11 December 2019. This date was set as the deadline for the tribunal to deliver its reasons for judgement, if not sooner. The application for the final declaration was adjourned to 11 December 2019 at 9 a.m., allowing additional time for the parties to present further evidence and arguments.

Orders

Orders of the court

TEMPORARY DECLARATION OF PROHIBITED BROTHEL

I make an ORDER pursuant to section 66A (1)(a) of the Prostitution Act 1999 DECLARING that the premises situated at 18/34 Dominions Road, Ashmore, in the State of Queensland, is a ‘prohibited brothel’.

This Temporary declaration is made for a specified period, namely: until 11 December 2019 when I will deliver my Reasons for Judgement, if not sooner. The Application for a Final Order is adjourned to the 11 December 2019, at 9 a.m.

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:	Pyatt v Cheah [2019] QMC 18
PARTIES:	Detective Senior Constable Matthew Stephen Pyatt (Applicant) v Chye Jean Cheah (Defendant/Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Southport 1421/19
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Civil – Miscellaneous Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Southport
DELIVERED ON:	05 December 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	14 November 2019
MAGISTRATE:	J J Costanzo
ORDER:	TEMPORARY DECLARATION OF PROHIBITED BROTHEL I make an ORDER pursuant to section 66A (1)(a) of the Prostitution Act 1999 DECLARING that the premises situated at 18/34 Dominions Road, Ashmore, in the State of Queensland, is a ‘prohibited brothel’. This Temporary declaration is made for a specified period, namely: until 11 December 2019 when I will deliver my Reasons for Judgement, if not sooner. The Application for a Final Order is adjourned to the 11 December 2019, at 9 a.m.
CATCHWORDS:	Prostitution – Whether joint applications for both temporary declaration and final declaration of premises to be a prohibited brothel can be made together in one document. Prostitution – Temporary Declaration of premises to be a prohibited brothel – Meaning of ‘Prohibited Brothel’ – Exercise of discretion – Standard of proof on the balance of probabilities — Acts Interpretation Act 1954, ss 14A, 32C, 32CA. Prostitution Act 1999, ss 65, 66, 66A, 67, 71.
CASES CITED IN THIS JUDGEMENT:	Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] ALR 334. MAN v MAM [2003] QDC 398. Prostitution Licensing Authority v Neilson [2010] QCA 159. Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517; [1966] ALR 270.
SOLICITORS:	Sargent Wang for the Applicant Police Officer Mr Gatenby, Solicitior for the Defendant