SYO v CMQ

[2024] QSC 324

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SYO v CMQ [2024] QSC 324

PARTIES:

SYO

(Applicant)
And
CMQ
(First Respondent)
And
THE KING
(Second Respondent)
And
JUDGE GARY LONG SC

(Third Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 and 18 December 2024, partly on the papers

JUDGE:

Bowskill CJ

ORDERS:

The applicant has leave to issue the originating process, subject to amendment in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 14 below.

CATCHWORDS

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS – application for leave to commence application for judicial review of a decision of a judge of the District Court, seeking relief in the nature of certiorari – consideration of the proper identification of the parties to the application

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 15

CQX18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 386
SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 228 CLR 294

Sinkovich v Attorney General of New South Wales (2013) 85 NSWLR 783

COUNSEL:

A Scott KC, for the applicant

SOLICITORS:

Women’s Legal Service Qld, for the applicant

1. On about 4 December 2024, the applicant sought to file in the registry an application for judicial review of a decision made by his Honour Judge Long SC on 5 November 2024. The decision dismissed applications by the applicant, and a counsellor, seeking to set aside the earlier grant of leave to issue subpoenas to compel production of “protected counselling communications”. A registrar referred the originating process to the court under r 15(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. A judge of the court directed the registrar, under r 15(2)(b), to refuse to issue the originating process without leave of the court.

2. That direction was communicated to the applicant on 5 December 2024. On 6 December 2024, Women’s Legal Service, on behalf of the applicant, wrote to the Court, requesting that the direction made under r 15 be set aside under r 667 of the UCPR, on the ground that the direction was made in the absence of the applicant.

3. The letter of 6 December 2024 was drawn to my attention on 17 December 2024.   I instructed my associate to respond in the following terms:

   “Her Honour understands that last week, [SYO] sought to file an ‘application for review’. A registrar referred the originating application to the court under r 15(1) of the UCPR. This procedure is available where the registrar considers an originating process ‘appears to be an abuse of the process of the court or frivolous or vexatious’. A judge of the court directed the registrar, under r 15(2), to ‘refuse to issue the originating process without leave of the court’. The effect of this direction is that the applicant must make an application for leave to issue (file) the originating process. It does not reflect a concluded finding that the originating process ‘is’ frivolous or vexatious.

   The Chief Justice asks me to say that…