Ritson v Ryan - [2023] QCAT 33

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Ritson v Ryan [2023] QCAT 33

PARTIES:

brendan ritson

(applicant)

v

johnathan laurence ryan

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCL024-21

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 February 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

The application filed 8 February 2022 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – production of document by third party – whether document relevant – contempt proceedings – particulars specifying contempt – document not relevant to charge as particularised

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 63(1), s 219(2).

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 926

Camm v ASI Development Co PtyLtd [2007] QCA 317
Costello v Courtney [2001] 1 Qd R 481
O’Connor v Hough (No 2) [2017] QSC 68

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant has applied to the Tribunal for an order under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”) s 63(1) that the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police produce to the applicant the full criminal record of the respondent. On 22 February 2022 the President of the Tribunal made directions for the filing and serving of submissions relating to this application, and for it to be determined on the papers. For the reasons set out below, the application is dismissed.
The application was filed in a proceeding commenced by an application filed by the applicant on 14 April 2021, seeking that the respondent be found to be in contempt of the Tribunal and be punished by a fine.[1] The application alleged that the respondent was in contempt in two respects, described as Charge 1 and Charge 2. The former alleged a failure to comply with an order of an adjudicator as to emailing material to the applicant; the latter alleged that the respondent stated orally to the adjudicator information that he knew was false or misleading in a material particular. Particulars were given of Charge 2.
[1]The substantive proceeding between the parties, commenced on 10 October 2016, have had a long and complex history, summarised in the third decision of the Appeal Tribunal: Ritson v Ryan [2021] QCATA 100. That decision remitted the matter to the Tribunal, where it was again dismissed: [2021] QCAT 364. An appeal has been filed from that decision.
With that application was filed an affidavit by the applicant, and an affidavit of service filed on 13 January 2022 deposes to both having been served personally on the respondent on 17 December 2021. The application before me has presumably been served on the respondent, although I have not seen evidence of that. The applicant said at the directions hearing before the President that it had been served two weeks earlier. At that directions hearing, the President raised…

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 [2023] QCAT 33
Case: [2023] QCAT 33
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ritson v Ryan, the applicant, Brendan Ritson, sought an order from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police to produce the full criminal record of the respondent, Johnathan Laurence Ryan. The application arose out of a proceeding commenced by Ritson, seeking to find Ryan in contempt of the Tribunal and impose a fine. The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the document sought was not relevant to the charges as particularised.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the document requested was relevant to the charges of contempt as particularised and whether the Tribunal had the authority to compel the production of the criminal record. The Tribunal considered that the relevance of the document was pivotal, as it was required to be directly connected to the charges as specified by the applicant. The Tribunal found that the document was not relevant to the charges as particularised, as the particulars related to a specific conviction for a traffic offence, which Ritson was already aware of. This meant the document was not necessary for proving the charges.

The Tribunal's reasoning hinged on the requirement for strict compliance with procedural rules in contempt proceedings. It noted that the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 required an application for contempt to specify the alleged contempt, and the relevance of the document sought was integral to this specification. Since the document was not relevant to the charges as particularised, the application was dismissed. The Tribunal did not delve into other issues such as the authority of the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police to comply with the Tribunal's order or the classification of a traffic offence as a criminal offence, as these were not addressed by the applicant.

Orders