Ritson v Ryan - [2024] QSC 76

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ritson v Ryan [2024] QSC 76

PARTIES:

BRENDAN RITSON
(applicant)

v

JONATHAN LAURENCE RYAN
(first respondent)

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
(second respondent)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

(intervener)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 12717 of 2023

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 March 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2024

JUDGE:

Crowley J

ORDER:

1. Intervener’s application granted.

2. Application for judicial review dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

BANKRUPTCY – PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SEQUESTRATION – PETITION AND SEQUESTRATION ORDER – EFFECT OF BANKRUPTCY ON PROPERTY AND PROCEEDINGS – ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST BANKRUPT – ACTIONS BY OR ON BEHALF OF BANKRUPT – where the applicant received a payment from the Defence Abuse Repatriation Scheme – where the applicant purchased a chose in action in respect of a debt – where the applicant is a bankrupt – where an order was made suspending the operation of the sequestration order to prosecute the debt – where the application to prosecute the debt was dismissed – where leave to appeal the dismissal was considered a separate proceeding – where the applicant was considered incompetent to commence an appeal – where an application has been made to dismiss a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal member’s decision and remit the decision for reconsideration – where an application seeking certiorari or alternatively a statutory order of review has been made – where the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland has intervened – whether the proceeding for judicial review is characterised as “property” vested in the trustee in bankruptcy and the applicant has standing to bring the judicial review application.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 5, s 58, s 60(2), s 116, s 481(a)
Judicial Review Act1991 (Qld), s 48(1)(a), s 48(1)(d)

Beckham v Drake (1849) 2 HL Cas 579; 9 ER 1213, cited
Cox v Journeaux (No 2) (1935) 53 CLR 713, cited
Cummings v Claremont Petroleum NL (1996) 185 CLR 124, considered
Daemar v Industrial Commission of New South Wales (1988) 12 NSWLR 45, cited
Griffiths v Civil Aviation Authority (1996) 67 FCR 301, distinguished
Kostov v Amelie Housing (NCAT appeal) [2019] NSWSC 16, cited
Moss v Eaglestone (2011) 83 NSWLR 476, cited

Ritson v Ryan [2021] QCATA 100, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
No appearance from the first respondent
No appearance from the second respondent

K E Slack for the intervener

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
No appearance from the first respondent
No appearance from the second respondent

G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the intervener

This is an application brought by the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland, as intervener, seeking the dismissal, pursuant to s 48(1)(a) or, alternatively, s 48(1)(d), of the Judicial Review Act1991 (Qld), of an application filed by the applicant, Mr Ritson, on 10 October 2023, for judicial review under the Judicial Review Act. The basis of the application…

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 Ritson v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Ritson v Ryan [2024] QSC 76
Case: [2024] QSC 76
Decision Date: 27 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Ritson and Ryan, with Ritson being the applicant and Ryan the bankrupt. The dispute centred around Ritson's attempt to recover a debt owed to him, which was complicated by his own bankruptcy. Specifically, Ritson had received a payment from the Defence Abuse Repatriation Scheme and subsequently purchased a chose in action in respect of a debt. However, the dispute arose when an order was made suspending the operation of the sequestration order to allow Ritson to prosecute the debt, only for the application to be subsequently dismissed. Ritson then sought leave to appeal this dismissal, which was considered a separate proceeding. The court found Ritson incompetent to commence an appeal. The case then moved to the judicial review of a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal member's decision, with the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervening. The central legal issue was whether the proceeding for judicial review was characterised as "property" vested in the trustee in bankruptcy and whether Ritson had standing to bring the judicial review application.

The court examined the nature of the judicial review application and determined that it was not property vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. Consequently, Ritson did not have standing to bring the application himself. The court emphasised that the proceeding for judicial review was not a proprietary interest but rather a procedural right to challenge the tribunal's decision. As Ritson was deemed incompetent to commence an appeal, he also lacked the standing to bring the judicial review application on behalf of the trustee in bankruptcy. The court concluded that the intervention of the Attorney-General did not alter the fundamental issue of standing.

In light of the above, the court granted the intervener's application and dismissed Ritson's application for judicial review. The court held that Ritson's lack of competence to initiate an appeal extended to his incapacity to bring a judicial review application. Consequently, the court found that Ritson had no standing to challenge the tribunal's decision, and the application for judicial review was dismissed. The intervener's application was granted, which allowed the Attorney-General to further participate in the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of standing in legal proceedings, particularly in the context of bankruptcy and the limitations it imposes on the bankrupt's capacity to initiate certain legal actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Intervener’s application granted.

2. Application for judicial review dismissed.

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:	Ritson v Ryan [2024] QSC 76
PARTIES:	BRENDAN RITSON (applicant) v JONATHAN LAURENCE RYAN (first respondent) QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (second respondent) ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (intervener)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 12717 of 2023
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 March 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 March 2024
JUDGE:	Crowley J
ORDER:	1. Intervener’s application granted. 2. Application for judicial review dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	BANKRUPTCY – PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SEQUESTRATION – PETITION AND SEQUESTRATION ORDER – EFFECT OF BANKRUPTCY ON PROPERTY AND PROCEEDINGS – ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST BANKRUPT – ACTIONS BY OR ON BEHALF OF BANKRUPT – where the applicant received a payment from the Defence Abuse Repatriation Scheme – where the applicant purchased a chose in action in respect of a debt – where the applicant is a bankrupt – where an order was made suspending the operation of the sequestration order to prosecute the debt – where the application to prosecute the debt was dismissed – where leave to appeal the dismissal was considered a separate proceeding – where the applicant was considered incompetent to commence an appeal – where an application has been made to dismiss a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal member’s decision and remit the decision for reconsideration – where an application seeking certiorari or alternatively a statutory order of review has been made – where the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland has intervened – whether the proceeding for judicial review is characterised as “property” vested in the trustee in bankruptcy and the applicant has standing to bring the judicial review application. Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 5, s 58, s 60(2), s 116, s 481(a) Judicial Review Act1991 (Qld), s 48(1)(a), s 48(1)(d) Beckham v Drake (1849) 2 HL Cas 579; 9 ER 1213, cited Cox v Journeaux (No 2) (1935) 53 CLR 713, cited Cummings v Claremont Petroleum NL (1996) 185 CLR 124, considered Daemar v Industrial Commission of New South Wales (1988) 12 NSWLR 45, cited Griffiths v Civil Aviation Authority (1996) 67 FCR 301, distinguished Kostov v Amelie Housing (NCAT appeal) [2019] NSWSC 16, cited Moss v Eaglestone (2011) 83 NSWLR 476, cited Ritson v Ryan [2021] QCATA 100, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf No appearance from the first respondent No appearance from the second respondent K E Slack for the intervener
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf No appearance from the first respondent No appearance from the second respondent G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the intervener