Quach v Daly - [2024] QCA 221

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Quach v Daly [2024] QCA 221

PARTIES:

Dr MICHAEL VAN THANH QUACH
(appellant)
v
KEVIN JOHN DALY
(first respondent)
ROBIN DALY
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7316 of 2024
SC No 15806 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 115 (Martin SJA)

DELIVERED ON:

12 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Boddice JA and Crow J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – GENERALLY – where the appellant argued that the orders striking out the appellant’s claim and statement of claim and restraining him from instituting further proceedings without the leave of a Judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court were interlocutory orders and were wrong, and ought to be overturned – where the appellant argued that there had been a lack of a jurisdictional fact – whether the primary judge had proceeded incorrectly

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld), r 171, r 293, r 658

Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596; [1990] HCA 57, cited
Castillon v P & O Ports Limited (No 2) [2008] 2 Qd R 219; [2007] QCA 364, cited
Cordes v Dr Peter Ironside Pty Ltd [2010] 2 Qd R 235; [2009] QCA 302, cited
du Boulay v Worrell[2009] QCA 63, followed
Gedeon v Commissioner of New South Wales Crime Commission (2008) 236 CLR 120; [2008] HCA 43, considered
Michael Van Thanh Quach v Kevin John Daly and Robin Daly [2024] QSC 115, cited
Zetta Jet Pte Ltd v The Ship “Dragon Pearl” (No 2) (2018) 265 FCR 290; [2018] FCAFC 132, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
B Lambert (sol) for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Birch & Co for the respondents

THE COURT: The appellant, who is self-represented, has filed a notice of appeal with the sole ground as “Res judicata does not apply to interlocutory proceedings.” Whilst self-represented litigants should be afforded a degree of indulgence and given appropriate assistance, they are as much bound by the rules of court as any other litigant.[1]
[1]du Boulay v Worrell & Ors [2009] QCA 63 at [69] per Muir JA.
“Res” literally “the thing”, “judicata” literally “decided”, is a familiar phrase and concept to lawyers. There are both similarities and differences from issue estoppel.[2] The proposition that res judicata or issue estoppel cannot apply to interlocutory proceedings is, as a matter of law, incorrect. Holmes JA (with whom Wilson J agreed) in Castillon v P & O Ports Limited (No 2) [2008] 2 Qd R 219 at paragraphs [50] to [58], particularly at [56]:
“[56] In Makhoul v Barnes the full Federal Court described as “too broadly expressed” the proposition (expressed by a…

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 Quach v Daly

Details

AGLC: Quach v Daly [2024] QCA 221
Case: [2024] QCA 221
Decision Date: 12 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Quach v Daly, the appellant contested the orders made by the primary judge in the Supreme Court of Queensland. These orders included striking out the appellant's claim and statement of claim, and a restraint from initiating further proceedings without the leave of a Trial Division Judge. The appellant contended that these orders were interlocutory and incorrect, and argued that there was a lack of a jurisdictional fact which the primary judge failed to identify.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the primary judge's orders were properly made and if there was a jurisdictional oversight. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the appellant had adequately identified any jurisdictional fact that was overlooked by the primary judge. The appellant was requested multiple times to specify the jurisdictional fact in question but was unable to do so.

The court found that the appellant's argument lacked logical basis and coherence. There was no evidence to suggest that the primary judge had failed to identify a jurisdictional fact, nor was there any valid reason to overturn the orders. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded against the appellant.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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

The appellant was asked on four occasions to identify the jurisdictional fact which he submitted the primary judge had failed to find, thus establishing the primary judge's lack of jurisdiction. The appellant could not identify any jurisdictional fact. This argument is also nonsense.Conclusion No logical basis has been shown to interfere with the conclusions of the primary judge. We dismiss the appeal with costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Quach v Daly [2024] QCA 221
PARTIES:	Dr MICHAEL VAN THANH QUACH (appellant) v KEVIN JOHN DALY (first respondent) ROBIN DALY (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7316 of 2024 SC No 15806 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 115 (Martin SJA)
DELIVERED ON:	12 November 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 October 2024
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Boddice JA and Crow J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – GENERALLY – where the appellant argued that the orders striking out the appellant’s claim and statement of claim and restraining him from instituting further proceedings without the leave of a Judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court were interlocutory orders and were wrong, and ought to be overturned – where the appellant argued that there had been a lack of a jurisdictional fact – whether the primary judge had proceeded incorrectly Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld), r 171, r 293, r 658 Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596; [1990] HCA 57, cited Castillon v P & O Ports Limited (No 2) [2008] 2 Qd R 219; [2007] QCA 364, cited Cordes v Dr Peter Ironside Pty Ltd [2010] 2 Qd R 235; [2009] QCA 302, cited du Boulay v Worrell[2009] QCA 63, followed Gedeon v Commissioner of New South Wales Crime Commission (2008) 236 CLR 120; [2008] HCA 43, considered Michael Van Thanh Quach v Kevin John Daly and Robin Daly [2024] QSC 115, cited Zetta Jet Pte Ltd v The Ship “Dragon Pearl” (No 2) (2018) 265 FCR 290; [2018] FCAFC 132, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf B Lambert (sol) for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Birch & Co for the respondents