TRG v The Board of Trustees of the Brisbane Grammar School

[2021] HCATrans 85

[2021] HCATrans 085

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B61 of 2020

B e t w e e n -

TRG

Applicant

and

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BRISBANE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

Respondent

GAGELER J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 14 MAY 2021, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   I refuse the interlocutory application by Mr Chambers for intervention in this special leave application.  I publish my reasons, and I direct that those reasons be incorporated into the transcript. 

Scheduled for hearing by the Full Court on 20 May 2021 is an application for special leave to appeal from the decision of Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland in TRG v The Board of Trustees of the Brisbane Grammar School [2020] QCA 190 which dismissed an appeal from the dismissal by Davis J in TRG v The Board of Trustees of the Brisbane Grammar School [2019] QSC 157 of an application under s 48(5A) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (QLD) to set aside an agreement effecting a settlement of a claim by a former student of Brisbane Grammar School against its Board of Trustees in relation to sexual assaults by its school counsellor. The agreement was entered into in 2002 following mediation of claims by a number of former students.

By interlocutory application filed on 28 April 2021, Mr Toby James Chambers, who is self‑represented, seeks leave to intervene in the application for special leave to appeal.  His application is supported by an affidavit of the same date in which Mr Chambers reveals the basis of the application to be his belief that he is a member of a class affected by the decision of Davis J.

The interlocutory application is appropriate to be determined in advance of the hearing of the application for special leave. Pursuant to r 13.03.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), I direct that it is to be determined without listing it for hearing.

The principles governing the exercise of the discretion to permit non‑party intervention were stated by the Full Court in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNET Ltd [ No 1] (2011) 248 CLR 37 at 38‑39 [2]‑[3] with reference to the observations of Brennan CJ in Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579 at 600‑605.

Assuming, without determining, that Mr Chambers is a person whose legal interests might be indirectly or contingently affected by the principles enunciated in the decision of the Court of Appeal from which special leave to appeal is sought, the discretion to permit him to intervene turns on him showing that the parties to the application for special leave to appeal may not fully present arguments which the Full Court should have in order to reach a correct determination of that application.  The affidavit in support of his application does not address what Mr Chambers would add to the argument put in writing, and to be put orally, by the represented parties to the application for special leave to appeal.  There is no reason to consider that the Full Court’s determination of the application would be assisted by the intervention sought.

The interlocutory application filed on 28 April 2021 will be refused.  There will be no order as to costs.

The Court will now adjourn.

AT 9.30 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED