Renton v Magistrate Baldwin - [2009] QSC 103

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Renton v Magistrate Baldwin & Anor [2009] QSC 103

PARTIES:

ALLAN RENTON

Applicant

v

MAGISTRATE BALDWIN

First Respondent

&

M VAN DER BEEK

Second Respondent

FILE NO/S:

Rockhampton Registry 519 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

7 May 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

5 May 2009

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

1.   Direct that at the hearing of the matter the parties address the contentions raised by grounds 3, 6, 8, 14, 16, 17 (to the extent that it alleges the referee took evidence from and was influenced by a third party), and 21 (to the extent it alleges a refusal to hear evidence) set out in the affidavit of Mr Renton filed 19 February 2009.

2.   Direct that on or before 4 pm on 21 May 2009 the applicant file and serve on the second respondent notice of particulars of grounds 17 and 21 namely:

(a)      the identity of the person from whom the referee took evidence referred to in ground 17;

(b)      the evidence received by the referee from the third party referred to in ground 17;

(c)       the evidence that the Referee refused to hear referred to in ground 21.

3.   Matter to be listed for either further mention or hearing, if the parties are ready for hearing, on 25 May 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

Small Claims Tribunal Act 1973 (Qld)

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20

Ex parte Taylor; re Butler (1924) 41 WN (NSW) 81

Greenwood v Winsor [2008] QCA 415

COUNSEL:

Self-represented

S Smith for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Self- Represented

Grant and Simpson Lawyers for the second respondent

Mr Allan Renton has sought judicial review of a decision of the first respondent (“the Referee”) under the Small Claims Tribunal Act 1973 (Qld) (“the Act”). The Referee’s decision was in relation to Mr Renton’s dispute with the second respondent, Mr M Van der Beek, over Mr Renton’s tenancy of a dwelling house owned by Mr Van der Beek (“the dwelling”).

No appeal lies from a decision of a Referee under the Act. The right to judicially review a Referee’s decision under the Act is limited by s 19 of the Act to issues of want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice.

The issue before the Referee was whether Mr Renton was entitled to compensation by reason of a defective notice to vacate the dwelling given to him by the second respondent. The Referee declined to award compensation on the ground that the notice given was not defective.

Mr Renton’s complaint is that the order made against him involved a breach of the rules of natural justice. His application refers to s 20(2) (a) and (f) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). No complaint is made about the Referee’s jurisdiction to entertain the claim and indeed Mr Renton relies on the Referee having jurisdiction.

Section 20 of the Judicial…

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 Renton v Magistrate Baldwin

Details

AGLC: Renton v Magistrate Baldwin [2009] QSC 103
Case: [2009] QSC 103
Decision Date: 7 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Renton v Magistrate Baldwin was a judicial review case heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant, Renton, sought to challenge a decision made by Magistrate Baldwin, the respondent, who was acting in an administrative capacity. The crux of the dispute revolved around allegations of procedural unfairness and other potential legal errors in the decision-making process by the Magistrate.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Specifically, Renton alleged that the Magistrate had improperly received evidence from a third party and had refused to hear certain evidence, amongst other procedural failings. The court was tasked with examining whether these allegations, if true, constituted valid grounds for judicial review.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously considered each of the grounds for review presented by Renton. The court directed the parties to address specific contentions during the hearing, focusing on the allegations of procedural unfairness and the reception and refusal of evidence. It also mandated that Renton provide detailed particulars regarding the evidence in question to ensure clarity and fairness in the proceedings. The court scheduled the matter for either further mention or hearing, contingent on the parties' readiness.

The final orders included a direction for the parties to address certain grounds of review during the hearing, a requirement for Renton to provide detailed particulars of specific allegations, and a scheduling of the matter for further mention or hearing, if the parties were prepared. These orders ensured that the issues of procedural fairness and evidence reception would be thoroughly examined in the subsequent proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Direct that at the hearing of the matter the parties address the contentions raised by grounds 3, 6, 8, 14, 16, 17 (to the extent that it alleges the referee took evidence from and was influenced by a third party), and 21 (to the extent it alleges a refusal to hear evidence) set out in the affidavit of Mr Renton filed 19 February 2009.

2. Direct that on or before 4 pm on 21 May 2009 the applicant file and serve on the second respondent notice of particulars of grounds 17 and 21 namely:

(a) the identity of the person from whom the referee took evidence referred to in ground 17;

(b) the evidence received by the referee from the third party referred to in ground 17;

3. Matter to be listed for either further mention or hearing, if the parties are ready for hearing, on 25 May 2009.

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:	Renton v Magistrate Baldwin & Anor [2009] QSC 103
PARTIES:	ALLAN RENTON Applicant v MAGISTRATE BALDWIN First Respondent & M VAN DER BEEK Second Respondent
FILE NO/S:	Rockhampton Registry 519 of 2008
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	7 May 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	5 May 2009
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	1. Direct that at the hearing of the matter the parties address the contentions raised by grounds 3, 6, 8, 14, 16, 17 (to the extent that it alleges the referee took evidence from and was influenced by a third party), and 21 (to the extent it alleges a refusal to hear evidence) set out in the affidavit of Mr Renton filed 19 February 2009. 2. Direct that on or before 4 pm on 21 May 2009 the applicant file and serve on the second respondent notice of particulars of grounds 17 and 21 namely: (a) the identity of the person from whom the referee took evidence referred to in ground 17; (b) the evidence received by the referee from the third party referred to in ground 17; (c) the evidence that the Referee refused to hear referred to in ground 21. 3. Matter to be listed for either further mention or hearing, if the parties are ready for hearing, on 25 May 2009.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS Small Claims Tribunal Act 1973 (Qld) Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20 Ex parte Taylor; re Butler (1924) 41 WN (NSW) 81 Greenwood v Winsor [2008] QCA 415
COUNSEL:	Self-represented S Smith for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Self- Represented Grant and Simpson Lawyers for the second respondent