Romanski v Stone; Black v Stone - [2023] QMC 11

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Romanski v Stone; Black v Stone [2023] QMC 11

PARTIES:

MAREK ROMAN ROMANSKI (Applicant)

v

MARK DOUGLAS STONE (Respondent)

PARTIES:

DENNIS BLACK (Applicant)

v

MARK DOUGLAS STONE (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00188705/21(9)

MAG-00188647/21(9)

DIVISION:

Industrial Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 August 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27/03/2023

MAGISTRATE:

Pinder

ORDER:

1. THE HEARING IS TO BE CONDUCTED AS A DE NOVO HEARING.

2. THE RESPONDENT BEARS THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING EACH ALLEGATION AGAINST THE APPLICANTS.

3. THE RESPONDENT PROVIDE PARTICULARS OF THE ALLEGATION AGAINST THE APPLICANTS.

4. THE RESPONDENT IS TO OPEN HIS CASE FIRST WITH THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND.

5. THE FIRST HEARING IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY GROUNDS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE APPLICANT’S IS ESTABLISHED. IF ANY GROUNDS TO TAKE ACTION ARE ESTABLISHED, THERE WILL THEN BE A FURTHER HEARING TO DETERMINE WHAT ACTION IS TO BE TAKEN.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION IN A PROCEEDING – Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 199 - DIRECTIONS REGARDING HEARING OF APPEAL (de novo) AND SEPERATE SANCTION HEARING (de novo) – ONUS UPON PARTIES – OPENING OF CASE – PROVISION OF PARTICULARS

Dalliston v Taylor & Anor (2015) ICQ 017.

Turnbull v New South Wales Medical Board (1976) 2 NSWLR 281.

De Tournouer v Chief Executive, Department of Environment & Resource Management

Oakley v Chief Executive Administering the Coastal Protection and Management Act.

Ex Parte Australian Sport Club NTP v Dash 47 SRNSW 293.

Phillipson v Commonwealth (1964) 110 CKR 347.

Battle v Bundagen CooperativeLtd No. 2 (1989) FCA 47.

Battle v Bundagen [2011] NSCA 38

Sakalo v the Medical Board of Western Australia (2002) WASCA 178.

COUNSEL:

N. Boyd for Applicant Romanski

C. A. Massy for Applicant Black

M.T. Hickey OAM for Respondent

SOLICITORS:

McGinnes & Associates Lawyers for first and second Applicant

Resources Safety & Health Queensland for Respondent

Introduction

The applicant Marek Romanski (Romanski) has filed an application in existing proceedings seeking directions for the substantive conduct of the appeal.

In separate, but related proceedings, Dennis Black (Black) has similarly applied for directions orders in the same terms.

The respondent to both appeals (and to the application in existing proceedings – directions) is the same respondent Mark Douglas Stone (Stone) the CEO pursuant to the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (the Act).

The parties have treated both the Substantive Appeals and these Interlocutory Applications as being heard together, notwithstanding, to date there are no orders providing for that.

For the purposes of these Introductory Applications and these reasons I proceed upon the same basis.

The Substantive Appeal

The substantive appeal is an appeal against the decision of the respondent (Stone) to cancel the appellant’s (Romanski & Block) certificate of competency under s 179D of the Act.

The parties all agree that this is the first appeal of its kind since the Act was amended and there are no direct authorities in respect of the conduct of appeals brought pursuant to pt14 of 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.

Continue reading Romanski v Stone; Black v Stone

Details

AGLC: Romanski v Stone; Black v Stone [2023] QMC 11
Case: [2023] QMC 11
Decision Date: 24 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Romanski v Stone; Black v Stone involves an appeal against the decision of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Authority (CMSHA) and the Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2009. The applicants, Romanski and Black, sought a de novo review of the decision and sought directions regarding the hearing of the appeal and a separate sanction hearing. The dispute centred around the CMSHA's decision to take action against the applicants, and the applicants argued that the decision was not supported by the evidence and that the CMSHA had failed to consider certain evidence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the hearing should be conducted as a de novo hearing, whether the respondent bore the onus of establishing each allegation against the applicants, whether the respondent should provide particulars of the allegation against the applicants, and whether the respondent should open his case first with the applicants to respond. The court also had to consider whether there should be a separate sanction hearing if any grounds to take action against the applicants were established.

In its decision, the court held that the hearing should be conducted as a de novo hearing, meaning that the court would make its own determination of the issues based on the evidence presented. The court also held that the respondent bore the onus of establishing each allegation against the applicants. The court ordered the respondent to provide particulars of the allegation against the applicants, and that the respondent should open his case first with the applicants to respond. The court held that if any grounds to take action against the applicants were established, there would be a further hearing to determine what action was to be taken. The court did not consider it necessary to hold a separate sanction hearing at that stage.

In conclusion, the court's decision provided clarity on the procedure for the hearing of the appeal and the role of the parties in the proceedings. The court's orders ensured that the applicants had an opportunity to respond to the allegations against them and that the respondent had to establish each allegation with particulars. The court's decision also provided for a further hearing if any grounds to take action against the applicants were established, ensuring that the applicants' rights were protected throughout the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. THE HEARING IS TO BE CONDUCTED AS A DE NOVO HEARING.

2. THE RESPONDENT BEARS THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING EACH ALLEGATION AGAINST THE APPLICANTS.

3. THE RESPONDENT PROVIDE PARTICULARS OF THE ALLEGATION AGAINST THE APPLICANTS.

4. THE RESPONDENT IS TO OPEN HIS CASE FIRST WITH THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND.

5. THE FIRST HEARING IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY GROUNDS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE APPLICANT’S IS ESTABLISHED. IF ANY GROUNDS TO TAKE ACTION ARE ESTABLISHED, THERE WILL THEN BE A FURTHER HEARING TO DETERMINE WHAT ACTION IS TO BE TAKEN.

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:	Romanski v Stone; Black v Stone [2023] QMC 11
PARTIES:	MAREK ROMAN ROMANSKI (Applicant) v MARK DOUGLAS STONE (Respondent)
PARTIES:	DENNIS BLACK (Applicant) v MARK DOUGLAS STONE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	MAG-00188705/21(9) MAG-00188647/21(9)
DIVISION:	Industrial Magistrates Court
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 August 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27/03/2023
MAGISTRATE:	Pinder
ORDER:	1. THE HEARING IS TO BE CONDUCTED AS A DE NOVO HEARING. 2. THE RESPONDENT BEARS THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING EACH ALLEGATION AGAINST THE APPLICANTS. 3. THE RESPONDENT PROVIDE PARTICULARS OF THE ALLEGATION AGAINST THE APPLICANTS. 4. THE RESPONDENT IS TO OPEN HIS CASE FIRST WITH THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND. 5. THE FIRST HEARING IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY GROUNDS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE APPLICANT’S IS ESTABLISHED. IF ANY GROUNDS TO TAKE ACTION ARE ESTABLISHED, THERE WILL THEN BE A FURTHER HEARING TO DETERMINE WHAT ACTION IS TO BE TAKEN.
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION IN A PROCEEDING – Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 199 - DIRECTIONS REGARDING HEARING OF APPEAL (de novo) AND SEPERATE SANCTION HEARING (de novo) – ONUS UPON PARTIES – OPENING OF CASE – PROVISION OF PARTICULARS Dalliston v Taylor & Anor (2015) ICQ 017. Turnbull v New South Wales Medical Board (1976) 2 NSWLR 281. De Tournouer v Chief Executive, Department of Environment & Resource Management Oakley v Chief Executive Administering the Coastal Protection and Management Act. Ex Parte Australian Sport Club NTP v Dash 47 SRNSW 293. Phillipson v Commonwealth (1964) 110 CKR 347. Battle v Bundagen CooperativeLtd No. 2 (1989) FCA 47. Battle v Bundagen [2011] NSCA 38 Sakalo v the Medical Board of Western Australia (2002) WASCA 178.
COUNSEL:	N. Boyd for Applicant Romanski C. A. Massy for Applicant Black M.T. Hickey OAM for Respondent
SOLICITORS:	McGinnes & Associates Lawyers for first and second Applicant Resources Safety & Health Queensland for Respondent