Sargent v South-East Queensland Electricity Board

[1999] QCA 210

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
DEMACK J

Appeal No 3384 of 1999

JOHN G SARGENT Respondent

SOUTH-EAST QUEENSLAND ELECTRICITY BOARD Respondent

POWERLINK

THE MINISTER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 03/06/99

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr Sargent, the respondent to this application who represents himself, is seeking leave to appeal from the judgment of the Chief Justice dismissing his application for judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 and the order requiring him to pay costs including reserved costs on a solicitor and client basis of the respondents below, SEQEB and Powerlink.

Mr Sargent originally claimed compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 in the Land Court. The first and second respondents applied to the Land Court to have his application for compensation struck out for want of jurisdiction. They were successful. That decision has been the subject of appeal through the normal appeal channels without success on the part of Mr Sargent. Special leave to Mr Sargent to appeal to the High Court has been refused.

Mr Sargent then has sought judicial review, apparently of the administrative decision taken by SEQEB and Powerlink to take the jurisdictional point. This judicial review has been sought from a number of Judges, most recently the Chief Justice.

The applicant today, the Minister for the Department of Natural Resources, has been named as the third respondent to so what purports to be Mr Sargent's notice of appeal. The Minister was not a party to the proceedings below, the subject of the appeal or application for leave to appeal and has never been a party until he was served with a document titled "Notice of Appeal" in this matter on 14 April 1999.

Mr Sargent claims he is entitled to join the applicant as the Minister was a silent party under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 and that under sections 28, 52 and 53 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 he is entitled to join the Minister. These arguments ignore the fundamental point, the definition of decisions subject to review under the Judicial Review Act 1991. The Minister was not party to any such decision.

Understandably, the applicant, the Minister for the Department of Natural Resources now applies to have the appeal against him struck out. Mr Sargent has demonstrated no reason that could possibly justify the pursuit of his application for leave to appeal against the Minister who has never been a party to the matter the subject of this application for leave to appeal.

The application for leave to appeal and the purported notice of appeal as far as they name the Minister for the Department of Natural Resources must be struck out as against the Minister for the Department of Natural Resources.

The respondent to this application, Mr Sargent, should pay the costs of the applicant, the Minister for the Department of Natural Resources.

DEMACK J: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you want to say anything about costs, Mr Jones?

MR JONES: Yes, I did, Your Honour. Your Honour, my instructions are to seek costs and I immediately understand that it would be a most unusual course of action in circumstances such as this but Your Honours are already aware of some of the background to this and particularly some of the outrageous and scandalous allegations made against not only my client but also my instructing solicitors being party to various acts involving officers of the Court, Reporting Bureau, et cetera in the-----

DEMACK J: That hardly explains why you're here today though, does it? Because it's really the Minister's application and the Minister's only isn't it?

MR JONES: I understand that, Your Honour, and that's why I prefaced what I'm saying now with that observation. I agree that there would have to be exceptional circumstances and they are the circumstances on which I rely. I don't think I can take it any further than that.

DEMACK J: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: For my part I would not order that Mr Sargent pay the first and second respondents' costs of the application. The application today was only one brought by the third respondent to have his name struck out and I can see no reason why it was necessary for anyone to appear on behalf of the first and second respondents.

DEMACK J: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: The orders are that the application for leave to appeal and the purported notice of appeal as far as it names the Minister for the Department of Natural Resources as third respondent is struck out.

The respondent to the application Mr Sargent is to pay the costs of the applicant, the Minister for the Department of Natural Resources.

In the case of Sargent v South-East Queensland Electricity Board, the respondent, John Sargent, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his application for judicial review. The application for judicial review pertained to the decision of the Chief Justice, who dismissed Mr. Sargent's application and ordered him to pay costs. Mr. Sargent's initial claim was for compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, which was dismissed by the Land Court, a decision that was upheld on appeal. Mr. Sargent then sought judicial review, which was also dismissed. He now sought to appeal against the respondents, SEQEB and Powerlink, but also sought to join the Minister for the Department of Natural Resources as a party despite the Minister not being involved in the original proceedings.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Mr. Sargent was entitled to join the Minister as a party and whether he was entitled to appeal against the Minister. The Court needed to determine if the Minister was a party to the original decision that Mr. Sargent sought to challenge and if the Minister could be added as a party in this appeal. The Court also had to decide if the Minister should be included in the appeal proceedings and whether Mr. Sargent's application for leave to appeal should be struck out.

The Court of Appeal found that the Minister was not a party to the original decision and therefore could not be joined as a party in the appeal. The Minister had not been involved in the proceedings below and had no connection to the decisions that Mr. Sargent sought to challenge. The Court held that the application for leave to appeal and the purported notice of appeal naming the Minister were invalid. The Court also ordered that Mr. Sargent pay the costs of the Minister for the Department of Natural Resources for the application to strike out his name.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal and the purported notice of appeal, insofar as they named the Minister for the Department of Natural Resources, were struck out. Additionally, Mr. Sargent was ordered to pay the costs of the Minister for the Department of Natural Resources. The Court did not find it necessary to order Mr. Sargent to pay the costs of the original respondents as the application was solely against the Minister.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established