Ringrose v Clarence City Council - [2025] TASSC 59

[2025] TASSC 59

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Ringrose v Clarence City Council [2025] TASSC 59
PARTIES:	RINGROSE, Andrew-Grant
v
CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL
FILE NO:	2812/2025
DELIVERED ON:	31 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	30 October 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Daly AsJ
CATCHWORDS:

Procedure — Civil proceedings in State and Territory Courts — Ending proceedings early – Summary judgment for defendant – Stay or dismissal of proceedings — Plaintiff's case challenges the power of a municipal council to levy rates and his liability to pay them — Plaintiff's case is so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed — Pseudo legal claims and submissions present no real question to be tried — Order for judgment against the plaintiff.

Aust Dig Procedure [1305]

Procedure — Civil proceedings in State and Territory Courts — Ending proceedings early – Summary judgment for defendant: stay or dismissal of proceedings — Other matters — Evidence not admissible on the question whether the pleadings (a) disclose any reasonable cause of action; or (b) show that the cause of action is frivolous or vexatious under r 259 — Evidence is admissible on the questions arising on an application under r 367.

Aust Dig Procedure [1308]

Hall v Hall [1996] TASSC 87 at [2] followed.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: P Jackson SC
Respondent: In person

Solicitors:

Applicant: Simmons Wolfhagen

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 59
Number of paragraphs:	37

Serial No 59/2025 File No 2812/2025

ANDREW-GRANT RINGROSE v CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	DALY AsJ 31 October 2025
Introduction

1             These are my reasons for granting the interlocutory application brought by the defendant and for making an order dismissing the plaintiff's action against the defendant. In these reasons I will refer to the plaintiff as Mr Ringrose and to the defendant as the Council.
2             This is an application for summary judgment brought by the defendant seeking judgment under r 367 on the basis that the action is frivolous or vexatious: r 367(2)(a). Alternatively, the defendant applied for an order under r 259 that the action be dismissed, permanently stayed, or the statement of claim be struck out, and that judgment be entered for the defendant accordingly.
3             The Council's application for summary judgment under r 367 was brought out of time and it has therefore sought an extension of time for bringing that application. For the reasons set out below, I have granted that application.

Time is extended to apply for summary judgment

4 For the following reasons, I propose to make an order extending the time within which the defendant may apply for summary judgment under r 367(1).
5 The legal principles to be applied to the determination of whether time should be extended are set out at par 8 of the Council's submissions. I accept these submissions. In Burnett v Fitzgerald and Browne [2017] TASSC 31 at [10]-[12], Brett J observed that there are four matters to be considered, no one factor being determinative and the weight…

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 Ringrose v Clarence 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: [2025] TASSC 59
Decision Date: 31 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ringrose v Clarence City Council involved a challenge by the plaintiff, Mr. Ringrose, against the Clarence City Council's authority to levy rates and his personal liability to pay these rates. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Mr. Ringrose contended that the Council had no lawful basis to impose rates and that, as a result, he was not obligated to pay them. The Council, acting as the defendant, sought to have the proceedings summarily dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff's claims were not only unfounded but also presented no genuine legal question.

The central legal issues before the court revolved around the validity of the Council's power to impose rates and Mr. Ringrose's obligation to pay them. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Mr. Ringrose's claims, which were described as pseudo-legal, warranted a trial or if they were so evidently baseless that they warranted summary dismissal. The court needed to determine whether the proceedings could be concluded early without a full trial, based on the evident untenability of the plaintiff's case.

In examining the merits of the plaintiff's claims, the court found that Mr. Ringrose's arguments against the Council's authority to levy rates were not only implausible but also contradicted by established legal precedents. The court concluded that the plaintiff's case was not just weak but fundamentally flawed, with no real prospect of success. The arguments presented were deemed to be pseudo-legal, lacking any substantive legal basis, and therefore did not constitute a genuine question to be tried. Consequently, the court granted the Council's application for summary judgment, dismissing Mr. Ringrose's proceedings and declaring that he was liable for the rates imposed by the Council. The court's decision effectively brought the matter to a close without the need for a full hearing.

Orders