Schoonwinkel v Inspec Group Pty Ltd - [2023] QCA 173

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Schoonwinkel v Inspec Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] QCA 173

PARTIES:

WILLEM JOCOBUS ADRIAN SCHOONWINKEL
(appellant)
v
INSPEC GROUP PTY LTD
ACN 063 710 789
(first respondent)
DOWNER EDI MINING PTY LTD
ACN 004 142 223
(second respondent)
BM ALLIANCE COAL OPERATIONS PTY LTD
ACN 096 412 752
(third respondent)
COMLEK GROUP PTY LTD
(contributor)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3006 of 2023
SC No 5885 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 14 February 2023 (Wilson J)

DELIVERED ON:

25 August 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 July 2023

JUDGES:

Bond and Dalton and Flanagan JJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – INHERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS – CONTROL OF COURT PROCEDURE – where the appellant began a personal injuries action in the Supreme Court – where the appellant filed an application requesting that the Court order the parties to attend a compulsory conference under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) – where the appellant appeared by telephone at the hearing of the application and spoke to the applications judge in a language other than English – where the appellant’s claim, statement of claim, application and affidavit filed in the personal injuries action are written in English – where the applications judge made an order adjourning the application to a date to be fixed because the appellant refused to participate in the proceeding in English – whether the applications judge should have allowed the appellant an interpreter at the hearing – whether the applications judge discriminated against the appellant by insisting he engage an interpreter at his own cost

Adamopoulos v Olympic Airways SA (1991) 25 NSWLR 75, cited
Dairy Farmers Co-operative Milk Co Ltd v Acquilina (1963) 109 CLR 458; [1963] HCA 59, cited
Ebatarinja v Deland (1998) 194 CLR 444; [1998] HCA 62, cited

COUNSEL:

No appearance by the appellant
J M Hewson for the first respondent
S K Yau (sol) for the second respondent
C L Dignan (sol) for the third respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance by the appellant
DWF (Australia) for the first respondent
Clyde & Co for the second respondent
MinterEllison for the third respondent

BOND JA: In the afternoon prior to the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, the registry had emailed the appellant in response to emails from him, in these terms:
“The Court acknowledges receipt of your emails of 24 July 2023 at 1:14pm and 25 July 2023 at 3:25pm.
Part of your emails appear to be in Afrikaans. The Court will not be responding to communication in that language.
We remind you that the appeal tomorrow will commence at 10:15am. You may attend either in person or by video link or by telephone.”
Instructions as to the means by which that attendance could be arranged then followed.
As there had been no…

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 Schoonwinkel v Inspec Group Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Schoonwinkel v Inspec Group Pty Ltd [2023] QCA 173
Case: [2023] QCA 173
Decision Date: 25 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schoonwinkel brought a personal injuries action against Inspec Group in the Supreme Court. Schoonwinkel subsequently filed an application requesting that the Court order the parties to attend a compulsory conference under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). When the application came before the court, Schoonwinkel appeared by telephone and spoke to the applications judge in a language other than English. Schoonwinkel's claim, statement of claim, application and affidavit were written in English. The applications judge made an order adjourning the application to a date to be fixed because Schoonwinkel refused to participate in the proceeding in English. Schoonwinkel appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the applications judge should have allowed him an interpreter at the hearing and that the judge discriminated against him by insisting that he engage an interpreter at his own cost.

The Court of Appeal held that the applications judge was correct to refuse to allow an interpreter to be present at the hearing. The court noted that the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) does not provide for the use of an interpreter in proceedings before the court. The court further noted that Schoonwinkel had not made any application for an interpreter to be present at the hearing and that he had not provided any evidence to suggest that he was unable to participate in the proceeding in English. The court held that the applications judge was therefore entitled to insist that Schoonwinkel participate in the proceeding in English and that he was not required to provide an interpreter at his own cost. The court also held that the applications judge did not discriminate against Schoonwinkel by refusing to allow an interpreter to be present at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Schoonwinkel's appeal with costs. The court held that the applications judge was correct to refuse to allow an interpreter to be present at the hearing and that he was not required to provide an interpreter at his own cost. The court further held that the applications judge did not discriminate against Schoonwinkel by refusing to allow an interpreter to be present at the hearing.

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:	Schoonwinkel v Inspec Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] QCA 173
PARTIES:	WILLEM JOCOBUS ADRIAN SCHOONWINKEL (appellant) v INSPEC GROUP PTY LTD ACN 063 710 789 (first respondent) DOWNER EDI MINING PTY LTD ACN 004 142 223 (second respondent) BM ALLIANCE COAL OPERATIONS PTY LTD ACN 096 412 752 (third respondent) COMLEK GROUP PTY LTD (contributor)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 3006 of 2023 SC No 5885 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 14 February 2023 (Wilson J)
DELIVERED ON:	25 August 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 July 2023
JUDGES:	Bond and Dalton and Flanagan JJA
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – INHERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS – CONTROL OF COURT PROCEDURE – where the appellant began a personal injuries action in the Supreme Court – where the appellant filed an application requesting that the Court order the parties to attend a compulsory conference under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) – where the appellant appeared by telephone at the hearing of the application and spoke to the applications judge in a language other than English – where the appellant’s claim, statement of claim, application and affidavit filed in the personal injuries action are written in English – where the applications judge made an order adjourning the application to a date to be fixed because the appellant refused to participate in the proceeding in English – whether the applications judge should have allowed the appellant an interpreter at the hearing – whether the applications judge discriminated against the appellant by insisting he engage an interpreter at his own cost Adamopoulos v Olympic Airways SA (1991) 25 NSWLR 75, cited Dairy Farmers Co-operative Milk Co Ltd v Acquilina (1963) 109 CLR 458; [1963] HCA 59, cited Ebatarinja v Deland (1998) 194 CLR 444; [1998] HCA 62, cited
COUNSEL:	No appearance by the appellant J M Hewson for the first respondent S K Yau (sol) for the second respondent C L Dignan (sol) for the third respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance by the appellant DWF (Australia) for the first respondent Clyde & Co for the second respondent MinterEllison for the third respondent