Ryan v Dearden - [2021] QCA 245

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ryan & Anor v Dearden & Anor [2021] QCA 245

PARTIES:

TERRENCE BERNARD RYAN
(first appellant)
NICOLE THERESE RYAN
(second appellant)
v
CHARLES OSWALD DEARDEN
(first respondent)
ROBERT ANDREW TAYLOR
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7885 of 2021
SC No 366 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from Interlocutory Decision

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton – Unreported, 15 June 2021 (Crow J)

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

12 November 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 November 2021

JUDGES:

Bond JA and Boddice and Henry JJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – OTHER MATTERS – CHANGE OF VENUE – where the appeal sought relief against the exercise of judicial discretion in an interlocutory decision – where the parties were engaged in a personal injuries action filed in the Rockhampton Supreme Court – where the incident the subject of the action occurred at Jondaryan – where the applicants sought to transfer the matter to Toowoomba or alternatively Brisbane – where this application was refused – where the case had not been certified as ready for trial and the list of witnesses likely to be called at trial had not been finalised – whether any substantial injustice was done to any of the parties by the refusal of the application

COUNSEL:

A P J Collins for the appellants
R D Green, with M Willey, for the first respondent
M Black for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

McCabe Curwood for the appellants
Grant and Simpson Lawyers for the first respondent
Hall Payne Lawyers for the second respondent

HENRY J: The appellants, Mr and Mrs Ryan, are defendants in a personal injuries action. They hosted their son’s 21st birthday celebration at their rural property near Jondaryan. The plaintiff respondent, Mr Dearden, was an attendee who, like many others, stayed overnight at the property. It is alleged that while Mr Dearden slept in his swag, another guest, Robert Taylor, poured petrol onto him and set him alight, inflicting injuries. Mr Dearden’s personal injuries claim against the Ryans, alleging negligence on their part, was filed in the Rockhampton Supreme Court on 14 April 2021. In an application filed 28 May 2021 and heard 14 June 2021, the applicants sought an order pursuant to r 39, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that the future conduct of the proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court Registry at Toowoomba or alternatively Brisbane. The application was refused by the Central Judge on 15 June 2021. The Ryans now appeal that decision.

The principles governing such an appeal were recently reviewed by Bond JA in Adeva Home Solutions Pty Ltd v Queensland Motorways Management Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 198. His Honour there observed that the degree of appellant restraint ordinarily called for in determining appeals from an exercise of judicial discretion is even greater in appeals from an exercise of judicial discretion in an interlocutory decision concerning…

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 Ryan v Dearden

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Dearden [2021] QCA 245
Case: [2021] QCA 245
Decision Date: 12 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Ryan v Dearden was brought before the court by the respondents, who were involved in a personal injuries action filed in the Rockhampton Supreme Court. The applicants in the appeal sought relief against the exercise of judicial discretion in an interlocutory decision, specifically the refusal to transfer the matter to Toowoomba or alternatively Brisbane. The incident that led to the action occurred at Jondaryan, and the applicants argued that the change of venue was necessary due to the proximity of the location to the court and the availability of witnesses. The court was required to decide whether the refusal of the application to transfer the matter constituted a substantial injustice to any of the parties involved.

The court considered the legal principles surrounding judicial discretion and the circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with the decision of a lower court. The court noted that the case had not been certified as ready for trial, and the list of witnesses likely to be called at trial had not been finalised. The court also considered the potential inconvenience and expense to the parties and witnesses if the matter were to be transferred to another location. Ultimately, the court determined that there was no substantial injustice done to any of the parties by the refusal of the application to transfer the matter.

In light of the above considerations, the court dismissed the appeal with costs. The court held that the refusal of the application to transfer the matter did not amount to an abuse of judicial discretion or a substantial injustice to any of the parties. The court emphasised the importance of judicial discretion in managing the flow of cases and ensuring that the legal process is efficient and fair for all parties involved. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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:	Ryan & Anor v Dearden & Anor [2021] QCA 245
PARTIES:	TERRENCE BERNARD RYAN (first appellant) NICOLE THERESE RYAN (second appellant) v CHARLES OSWALD DEARDEN (first respondent) ROBERT ANDREW TAYLOR (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7885 of 2021 SC No 366 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal from Interlocutory Decision
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton – Unreported, 15 June 2021 (Crow J)
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	12 November 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 November 2021
JUDGES:	Bond JA and Boddice and Henry JJ
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – OTHER MATTERS – CHANGE OF VENUE – where the appeal sought relief against the exercise of judicial discretion in an interlocutory decision – where the parties were engaged in a personal injuries action filed in the Rockhampton Supreme Court – where the incident the subject of the action occurred at Jondaryan – where the applicants sought to transfer the matter to Toowoomba or alternatively Brisbane – where this application was refused – where the case had not been certified as ready for trial and the list of witnesses likely to be called at trial had not been finalised – whether any substantial injustice was done to any of the parties by the refusal of the application
COUNSEL:	A P J Collins for the appellants R D Green, with M Willey, for the first respondent M Black for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	McCabe Curwood for the appellants Grant and Simpson Lawyers for the first respondent Hall Payne Lawyers for the second respondent