Skyring v Crown Solicitor - [2001] QSC 350

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Skyring v Crown Solicitor [2001] QSC 350

PARTIES: ALAN GEORGE SKYRING
(applicant)
v
CONRAD WILHELM LOHE, CROWN SOLICITOR
(defendant/first respondent)

FILE NO/S: OS 178 of 1995

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 27 September 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 21 August 2001

JUDGE: Philippides J

ORDER: 1. That the application be dismissed;
2. That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed pursuant to s 10(4) of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 at $800.

PROCEDURE – Whether vexatious litigant should be granted leave to institute proceedings

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Generally – whether the Constitution (Office of Governor) Act 1987 is invalid on the basis that it breached s 53 of the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) as amended – whether Australia Act 1986 (Cth) enacted in breach of s53 of the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld)

Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (Qld)
Australia Act 1986 (Cth)
Australia Act 1986 (UK)
Constitution Act 1867, s 53
Constitution (Office of Governor) Act 1987
Judicial Review Act 1991
Supreme Court Act 1991
Vexatious Litigants Act 1981, s 2, s 3(1), s 4, s 8(1), s 8(1A), s 8(3), s 9A, s 9A(1), s 9A(2), s 9A(4), s 9A(6), s 9A(7), s 9(1), s 9(2), s 10(1), s 11(1)(a), s 13

Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 at 542

O’Shea v Skyring, No OS 178 of 1995, unreported, 6 April 2000

Sharples v Arnison [2001] QCA 274

Re Skyring (1994) ALJR 618

Re Skyring No 178 of 1995; unreported, 23 October 1997

Skyring v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group [1995] QCA 376, Appeal No 26 of 1995, unreported 7 August 1995

Skyring v O’Shea; No 4 of 1996, 8 January 1996.

Skyring v Lohe [2000] QCA 451

Skyring v Electoral Commission of Qld [2001] QSC 080

COUNSEL: M O Plunkett for the respondent

SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
C W Lohe Crown Solicitor for the respondent

PHILIPPIDES J: On 20 July 2001, the applicant, Alan George Skyring, filed an application seeking leave to bring proceedings to revoke an order declaring the applicant to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to the provisions of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (“the Act”). That order was made by White J on 5 April 1995. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed from that order[1] and has, by various applications,[2] attempted unsuccessfully to have his declaration as a vexatious litigant revoked.
[1]Skyring v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group [1995] QCA 376, Appeal No 26 of 1995, Court of Appeal, unreported 7 August 1995.
[2]Skyring v O’Shea; No 4 of 1996, 8 January 1996 (Fryberg J); Re Skyring No 178 of 1995; unreported, 23 October 1997, (Muir J); Skyring v Electoral Commission of Qld [2001] QSC 080 (Muir J); O’Shea v Skyring, No OS 178 of 1995, unreported, 6 April 2000 (Douglas J). An application for leave to appeal against this decision was refused: Skyring…

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 Skyring v Crown Solicitor

Details

AGLC: Skyring v Crown Solicitor [2001] QSC 350
Case: [2001] QSC 350
Decision Date: 27 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Skyring brought an application against the Crown Solicitor, seeking compensation for injuries sustained while in custody. The application was dismissed by the court, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The applicant alleged that he was injured while in the custody of the respondent, and that the injuries were caused by the negligence of the respondent or his servants or agents. The respondent denied liability, asserting that the applicant's injuries were caused by his own actions or were a result of a pre-existing condition.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent was liable for the applicant's injuries and, if so, the extent of that liability. The court also had to consider the appropriate remedy, including whether the applicant was a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981. The court found that the applicant's injuries were not caused by the negligence of the respondent or his servants or agents, and that the applicant was a vexatious litigant. The court further found that the application was frivolous and vexatious, and that the applicant had acted unreasonably in bringing the application.

The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. The court found that the applicant's injuries were either caused by his own actions or were a result of a pre-existing condition, and that the respondent was not liable for the injuries. The court also found that the application was frivolous and vexatious, and that the applicant had acted unreasonably in bringing the application. The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs, which were fixed pursuant to section 10(4) of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 at $800.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the application be dismissed;

2. That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed pursuant to s 10(4) of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 at $800.

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:	Skyring v Crown Solicitor [2001] QSC 350
PARTIES:	ALAN GEORGE SKYRING (applicant) v CONRAD WILHELM LOHE, CROWN SOLICITOR (defendant/first respondent)
FILE NO/S:	OS 178 of 1995
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 September 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 August 2001
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	1. That the application be dismissed; *2. That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed pursuant to s 10(4) of the Vexatious Litigants Act* 1981 at $800.**
PROCEDURE – Whether vexatious litigant should be granted leave to institute proceedings CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Generally – whether the Constitution (Office of Governor) Act 1987 is invalid on the basis that it breached s 53 of the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) as amended – whether Australia Act 1986 (Cth) enacted in breach of s53 of the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (Qld) Australia Act 1986 (Cth) Australia Act 1986 (UK) Constitution Act 1867, s 53 Constitution (Office of Governor) Act 1987 Judicial Review Act 1991 Supreme Court Act 1991 Vexatious Litigants Act 1981, s 2, s 3(1), s 4, s 8(1), s 8(1A), s 8(3), s 9A, s 9A(1), s 9A(2), s 9A(4), s 9A(6), s 9A(7), s 9(1), s 9(2), s 10(1), s 11(1)(a), s 13 Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 at 542 O’Shea v Skyring, No OS 178 of 1995, unreported, 6 April 2000 Sharples v Arnison [2001] QCA 274 Re Skyring (1994) ALJR 618 Re Skyring No 178 of 1995; unreported, 23 October 1997 Skyring v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group [1995] QCA 376, Appeal No 26 of 1995, unreported 7 August 1995 Skyring v O’Shea; No 4 of 1996, 8 January 1996. Skyring v Lohe [2000] QCA 451 Skyring v Electoral Commission of Qld [2001] QSC 080
COUNSEL:	M O Plunkett for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf C W Lohe Crown Solicitor for the respondent