Thiess Pty Ltd v Industrial Magistrate Elizabeth Hall

Case [2014] QCA 129

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Thiess Pty Ltd v Industrial Magistrate Elizabeth Hall & Ors [2014] QCA 129

PARTIES:

THIESS PTY LTD
ABN 87 010 221 486
(appellant)
v
INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATE ELIZABETH HALL
(first respondent)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND, PRESIDENT D R HALL
(second respondent)
ADAM JOHN LOW
(third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5811 of 2013
SC No 11568 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

The appeal be dismissed.1.    

The parties’ submissions on costs be received by the court within 14 days of judgment delivery.2.    

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – GENERALLY – POWERS AND DUTIES – GENERALLY – where the third respondent filed a complaint alleging that the appellant had breached obligations imposed by the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 – where the complaint contained charges expressed in the alternative – where the third respondent had not appealed a trial division judge's earlier decision in the same proceedings that summary charges could not be brought in the alternative so that the complaint was not in a form authorised by s 43 of the Justices Act – whether the principle of finality of judgment should preclude this court from revisiting that conclusion

MAGISTRATES – GENERALLY – POWERS AND DUTIES – GENERALLY – where the third respondent filed a complaint alleging that the appellant had breached obligations imposed by the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 – where the complaint contained charges expressed in the alternative – where the primary judge held that an industrial magistrate had an implied power to strike out part of the complaint where it was necessary to enable the court to act effectively within its jurisdiction, such a power not being inconsistent with the express powers of election and amendment contained respectively in s 43 and s 48 of the Justices Act 1886 – whether the case was one of incorrect joinder under s 43 of the Justices Act so as to enliven the express power to require election contained in s 43(3)(a), with an implied power to strike out the count not proceeded on – where the appellant had conceded below that s 43(3)(a) was not applicable – whether the point should nonetheless be decided

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 567(1), s 567(2), s 568(6)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 43, s 48
Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), s 28

R v Bartlett [1972] Qd R 337, cited
Bastin v Davies [1950] 2 KB 579, cited
Broome v Chenoweth (1946) 73 CLR 583; [1946] HCA 53, cited
Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins (2003) 215 CLR 317; [2003] HCA 51, cited
Edwards v Jones [1947] KB 659, cited
Hayes v Wilson; ex parte Hayes [1984]…

Continue reading Thiess Pty Ltd v Industrial Magistrate Elizabeth Hall

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Thiess Pty Ltd v Industrial Magistrate Elizabeth Hall [2014] QCA 129
Case
[2014] QCA 129
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Thiess Pty Ltd, the appellant, against the decision of an industrial magistrate, Elizabeth Hall, the respondent, in relation to a complaint filed by the third respondent regarding alleged breaches of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. The complaint contained charges expressed in the alternative. The appellant challenged the decision of the primary judge, who held that the industrial magistrate had an implied power to strike out part of the complaint where it was necessary to enable the court to act effectively within its jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the principle of finality of judgment should preclude the court from revisiting an earlier decision that summary charges could not be brought in the alternative.

The primary legal issues were whether the principle of finality of judgment precluded the court from revisiting an earlier decision that summary charges could not be brought in the alternative, and whether the case was one of incorrect joinder under section 43 of the Justices Act so as to enliven the express power to require election contained in section 43(3)(a), with an implied power to strike out the count not proceeded on. The appellant had conceded below that section 43(3)(a) was not applicable, but the court nevertheless considered whether the point should be decided.

The court held that the principle of finality of judgment did not preclude the court from revisiting the earlier decision, as the principle of finality of judgment was not absolute and could be displaced in certain circumstances. The court also held that the case was not one of incorrect joinder under section 43 of the Justices Act, as the complaint was not in a form authorised by section 43 of the Justices Act. The court further held that an industrial magistrate had an implied power to strike out part of the complaint where it was necessary to enable the court to act effectively within its jurisdiction, such a power not being inconsistent with the express powers of election and amendment contained respectively in section 43 and section 48 of the Justices Act 1886.

The appeal was dismissed, and the parties' submissions on costs were to be received by the court within 14 days of judgment delivery.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.1.

The parties’ submissions on costs be received by the court within 14 days of judgment delivery.2.

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.