Sharples v O'Shea and Hanson - [2000] QCA 23

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Sharples v O’Shea and Hanson [2000] QCA 23

PARTIES:
TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES
(plaintiff/first respondent)
v
DESMOND J O’SHEA
(first defendant/second respondent)
PAULINE LEE HANSON as representative of herself and all members of PAULINE HANSON’S ONE NATION (as registered under the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld))
(second defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S: Appeal No 7592 of 1999
SC No 6318 of 1998

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 10 March 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 23 November 1999, 2 December 1999, 17 February 2000, 18 February 2000, 6 March 2000, 7 March 2000, 10 March 2000

JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P, Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:
Appeal dismissed.

Appellant to pay the first respondent’s costs, including any reserved costs, to be assessed.
No order as to costs between the appellant and the second respondent.

CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – STATUTORY APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES TO COURTS – APPEALS FROM PARTICULAR AUTHORITIES – appeal against outcome of application for review of decision of Electoral Commission to register political party – whether Trial Judge erred in finding first respondent had standing to bring application – whether first respondent affected by the decision reviewed –application brought out of time – whether Trial Judge erred in exercising her discretion to extend time limit

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PLEADING – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – where outcome of application for review brought under the Electoral Act 1992 appealed – whether Trial Judge’s decision was based on issues outside those identified by the pleadings – intended reading of statement of claim – whether Trial Judge’s assessment of the pleading realistic in the context of the actual conduct of the trial – whether Trial Judge’s late ruling as to effect of pleadings prejudiced fair conduct of appellant’s defence - whether Trial Judge erred in permitting late amendment of statement of claim

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – IN GENERAL – whether Trial Judge erred in acting on the evidence of witnesses called for the first respondent where contrary objective evidence existed – whether cumulative effect of that material excluded conclusion drawn from witness’ evidence –where no contradictory oral evidence on appellant’s part

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, followed
G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387, referred to
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, referred to
Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563, followed
Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 27, followed
Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1996-1997) 189 CLR 146, referred to
Re McHatten v Collector of Customs (1977) 18 ALR 154, referred to

Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) s 3, s 70, s 72, s 75, s 180

COUNSEL: Mr P Lyons QC, with him Mr P Roney for 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sharples v O'Shea and Hanson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] QCA 23
Decision Date: 10 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the decision of the Electoral Commission to register a political party, which was challenged by the appellant, Sharples. The first respondent, O'Shea, brought an application for review of the Electoral Commission's decision, which was allowed. The second respondent, Hanson, was a member of the political party and did not contest the application. The appellant sought to appeal the outcome of the application for review, raising several grounds, including whether the first respondent had standing, the application was brought out of time, and the Trial Judge exercised her discretion to extend the time limit erroneously. Additionally, the appellant argued that the Trial Judge's late ruling on the effect of the pleadings prejudiced the fair conduct of the appellant's defence, and the Trial Judge erred in permitting a late amendment of the statement of claim.

The court was required to determine whether the Trial Judge erred in finding that the first respondent had standing to bring the application, considering the effect of the decision reviewed on the first respondent. The court also needed to assess whether the application was brought out of time and if the Trial Judge's decision to extend the time limit was appropriate. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Trial Judge's assessment of the pleadings was realistic in the context of the actual conduct of the trial and whether the Trial Judge's late ruling prejudiced the fair conduct of the appellant's defence. Finally, the court had to examine whether the Trial Judge erred in permitting the late amendment of the statement of claim.

The court found that the Trial Judge did not err in her findings, as the evidence presented by the first respondent was not contradicted by any oral evidence from the appellant. The court held that the Trial Judge's assessment of the pleadings was realistic and did not prejudice the fair conduct of the appellant's defence. Furthermore, the court found that the Trial Judge did not err in permitting the late amendment of the statement of claim. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, including any reserved costs, to be assessed. There was no order as to costs between the appellant and the second respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Appellant to pay the first respondent’s costs, including any reserved costs, to be assessed.

No order as to costs between the appellant and the second respondent.

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:	Sharples v O’Shea and Hanson [2000] QCA 23
PARTIES:	TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES (plaintiff/first respondent) v DESMOND J O’SHEA (first defendant/second respondent) *PAULINE LEE HANSON as representative of herself and all members of PAULINE HANSON’S ONE NATION (as registered under the Electoral Act* 1992 (Qld))** (second defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7592 of 1999 SC No 6318 of 1998
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 March 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 November 1999, 2 December 1999, 17 February 2000, 18 February 2000, 6 March 2000, 7 March 2000, 10 March 2000
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P, Helman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed. Appellant to pay the first respondent’s costs, including any reserved costs, to be assessed. No order as to costs between the appellant and the second respondent.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – STATUTORY APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES TO COURTS – APPEALS FROM PARTICULAR AUTHORITIES – appeal against outcome of application for review of decision of Electoral Commission to register political party – whether Trial Judge erred in finding first respondent had standing to bring application – whether first respondent affected by the decision reviewed –application brought out of time – whether Trial Judge erred in exercising her discretion to extend time limit PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PLEADING – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – where outcome of application for review brought under the Electoral Act 1992 appealed – whether Trial Judge’s decision was based on issues outside those identified by the pleadings – intended reading of statement of claim – whether Trial Judge’s assessment of the pleading realistic in the context of the actual conduct of the trial – whether Trial Judge’s late ruling as to effect of pleadings prejudiced fair conduct of appellant’s defence - whether Trial Judge erred in permitting late amendment of statement of claim APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – IN GENERAL – whether Trial Judge erred in acting on the evidence of witnesses called for the first respondent where contrary objective evidence existed – whether cumulative effect of that material excluded conclusion drawn from witness’ evidence –where no contradictory oral evidence on appellant’s part *Briginshaw v Briginshaw* (1938) 60 CLR 336, followed *G v H* (1994) 181 CLR 387, referred to *Jones v Dunkel* (1959) 101 CLR 298, referred to *Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd* (1995) 183 CLR 563, followed *Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd* (1982) 149 CLR 27, followed *Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd* (1996-1997) 189 CLR 146, referred to *Re McHatten v Collector of Customs* (1977) 18 ALR 154, referred to *Electoral Act* 1992 (Qld) s 3, s 70, s 72, s 75, s 180
COUNSEL:	Mr P Lyons QC, with him Mr P Roney for the…