Richards v. Gold Coast City Council - [2008] QDC 91

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Richards v Gold Coast City Council [2008] QDC 91

PARTIES:

ANDREW JOHN RICHARDS
(applicant)

v
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

DC 96 of 08

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court Southport

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

28 April 2008

JUDGE:

Newton DCJ

ORDER:

The application for leave to extend time is dismissed. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

CATCHWORDS:

Application for leave to extend time to appeal – whether long period of delay is explained or justified – whether appeal has any merit - whether jurisdictional point now sought to be taken on appeal was agitated in the lower court – whether delay detracts from the public interest in the finality of litigation – whether it can be shown that the interests of justice are strongly in favour of the applicant – whether applicant is able to pay the substantial costs of appeal if unsuccessful.
Justices Act 1886 s.224 (1)(a)
Local Government Act 1993
Gold Coast City Council Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals)
Gold Coast City Council Local Law Policy No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals)
R v Tait [1999] 2 QD R 667 – referred to
Kobylski v Queensland Police Service [2007] QCA 50 – referred to
R v DAQ [2008] QCA 75 – referred to
Liftronic Pty Ltd v Umber [2001] HCA 24 – referred to

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared self represented
R Frigo for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared self represented
Woods Hatcher for the respondent

This is an application for extension of time for filing notice of appeal to a District Court Judge from a decision of a magistrate.

The applicant, Mr Richards, was convicted on 20 April 2007 following a summary trial in the Southport Magistrates Court of an offence in contravention of section 1193K(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 that he on 21 February 2006 without reasonable excuse did supply a restricted dog to someone else. He was fined $2,000.00 and ordered to pay costs of $5,565.40. No conviction was recorded.

Mr Richards filed a notice of appeal on 18 February 2008 pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886. The notice of appeal having been filed almost nine months out of time, Mr Richards now applies for leave to extend time to file his notice of appeal pursuant to section 224(1)(a) of the Justices Act 1886.

In R v Tait [1999] 2Qd. R 667 at p.668 the Court of Appeal considered the principles relating to the question of extending time in criminal appeals. It was stated that “the Court will examine whether there is any good reason shown to account for the delay and consider overall whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. That may involve some assessment of whether the appeal seems to be a viable one. It is not to be expected that in all such cases the…

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 Richards v. Gold Coast City Council 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: [2008] QDC 91
Decision Date: 2 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Richards v. Gold Coast City Council, the applicant sought leave to extend time to appeal a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The original decision concerned an issue of land use and development, with the QCAT ruling against the applicant, Richards. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Richards applied for an extension of time to appeal the QCAT decision, citing unforeseen delays as the reason for the extension. The court was tasked with determining whether the extensive delay in lodging the appeal could be justified and whether the appeal had any merit. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the jurisdictional point Richards sought to raise on appeal had been raised in the lower court, and whether the delay would undermine the public interest in the finality of litigation. The court also needed to assess whether the interests of justice were strongly in favour of the applicant and whether the applicant could afford the costs of the appeal if it were to be unsuccessful.

The court found that the long period of delay was not adequately explained or justified. It was noted that the jurisdictional point Richards sought to raise on appeal had not been agitated in the lower court, suggesting that the appeal lacked merit. The court also determined that the delay would detract from the public interest in the finality of litigation. The interests of justice did not strongly favour the applicant, and there was insufficient evidence to show that the applicant could pay the substantial costs of the appeal if it were to be unsuccessful. Consequently, the application for leave to extend time was dismissed, with the applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to extend time is dismissed. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

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:	Richards v Gold Coast City Council [2008] QDC 91
PARTIES:	ANDREW JOHN RICHARDS (applicant) v GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	DC 96 of 08
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court Southport
DELIVERED ON:	2 May 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	28 April 2008
JUDGE:	Newton DCJ
ORDER:	The application for leave to extend time is dismissed. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.
CATCHWORDS:	Application for leave to extend time to appeal – whether long period of delay is explained or justified – whether appeal has any merit - whether jurisdictional point now sought to be taken on appeal was agitated in the lower court – whether delay detracts from the public interest in the finality of litigation – whether it can be shown that the interests of justice are strongly in favour of the applicant – whether applicant is able to pay the substantial costs of appeal if unsuccessful. Justices Act 1886 s.224 (1)(a) Local Government Act 1993 Gold Coast City Council Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) Gold Coast City Council Local Law Policy No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) R v Tait [1999] 2 QD R 667 – referred to Kobylski v Queensland Police Service [2007] QCA 50 – referred to R v DAQ [2008] QCA 75 – referred to Liftronic Pty Ltd v Umber [2001] HCA 24 – referred to
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared self represented R Frigo for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared self represented Woods Hatcher for the respondent