United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Sargent - [2019] QDC 93

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Sargent [2019] QDC 93

PARTIES:

UNITED PETROLEUM PTY LTD
ACN 085 779 255
(appellant)

v

CAMERON JAMES SARGENT
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD No 4392 of 18
MC No 7103 of 14

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal s 222 Justices Act 1886

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Maroochydore – Date of Delivery of Decision: 9 November 2018

DELIVERED ON:

14 June 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

7 May 2019

JUDGE:

Jarro DCJ

ORDERS:

1. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

2. I WILL HEAR THE PARTIES AS TO COSTS.

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where the appellant is a defendant to a prosecution for alleged summary offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 – where the magistrate refused an application by the defendant that the prosecution be stayed – where the defendant appealed to the District Court pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 – whether the order concerned the disposition of the complaint – whether the appeal was competently brought

MAGISTRATES – JURISDICTION – LIMITATIONS AS TO TIME – where the appellant made an application that the prosecution be stayed on the basis that the complaint and summons was brought out of time – whether the “complainant” was the public officer, or the department for which they were an officer and/or employee – whether the magistrate erred in refusing the application by the appellant for a permanent stay of prosecution

Justices Act 1886, s 42, s 222, s 223, s 225

Environmental Protection Act 1994, s 497

Bienstein v Bienstein (2003) 195 ALR 225

Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 164 CLR 502

Cross Country Realty Pty Ltd v Peebles [2007] 2 Qd R 254

Crothers v Sheil (1933) 49 CLR 399

Foxpine Pty Ltd v Collings [2001] QCA 355

Heley v Johnson [2013] QDC 345

Ipswich City Council v Dixonbuild Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 98

Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd (2008) 167 FCR 372

Paulger v Hall [2003] 2 Qd R 294

Plaintiff S164/2018 v Minister for Home Affairs (2018) 361 ALR 8

Schneider v Curtis [1967] Qd R 300

Smith v Ash [2011] 2 Qd R 175

Smith v Baldwin, ex parte Smith [1979] Qd R 380

Steiner v Seri [2012] QCA 226

Thiele v Davis (2000) 165 QGIG 23

Witheyman v Van Riet [2008] 2 Qd R 587

COUNSEL:

M Wyles QC, with B Murphy, for the appellant

J Hunter QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

K&L Gates for the appellant

Department of Environment and Science for the respondent

The appellant appeals against an order of the Magistrates Court at Maroochydore dismissing its application seeking, among other things, a permanent stay of the prosecution commenced by way of complaint and summons dated 23 October 2014.[1]
[1]AB 1.

The appeal is brought pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886. The relevant subsection states:

“(1) If a person feels aggrieved as complainant,…

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 United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Sargent 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: [2019] QDC 93
Decision Date: 14 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, United Petroleum Pty Ltd appealed against a decision of a magistrate who declined to stay a prosecution for alleged summary offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. The matter was heard in the District Court, where the appellant argued that the magistrate erred in not staying the prosecution. The central issue for the court was whether the appeal was competently brought under the Justices Act 1886 and whether the order in question concerned the disposition of the complaint.

The court considered whether the appeal was correctly brought under section 222 of the Justices Act 1886. It found that for an appeal to lie, the order must concern the disposition of the complaint. In this case, the order in question was whether the prosecution should be stayed, which concerned the disposition of the complaint. Therefore, the appeal was validly brought. Regarding the merits of the stay application, the court examined whether the complaint was brought out of time. It found that the identity of the complainant was not critical to the timeliness of the complaint, as the relevant authority was the department, not the individual public officer. Therefore, the magistrate did not err in declining to stay the prosecution.

The court dismissed the appeal and noted that it would hear the parties regarding costs. The decision underscores the importance of correctly identifying the complainant and the timeliness of complaints under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. It also reaffirms the procedural requirements for appeals from magistrates' court decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

2. I WILL HEAR THE PARTIES AS TO COSTS.

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:	United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Sargent [2019] QDC 93
PARTIES:	UNITED PETROLEUM PTY LTD ACN 085 779 255 (appellant) v CAMERON JAMES SARGENT (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD No 4392 of 18 MC No 7103 of 14
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeal s 222 Justices Act 1886
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Maroochydore – Date of Delivery of Decision: 9 November 2018
DELIVERED ON:	14 June 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	7 May 2019
JUDGE:	Jarro DCJ
ORDERS:	1. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 2. I WILL HEAR THE PARTIES AS TO COSTS.
CATCHWORDS:	MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where the appellant is a defendant to a prosecution for alleged summary offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 – where the magistrate refused an application by the defendant that the prosecution be stayed – where the defendant appealed to the District Court pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 – whether the order concerned the disposition of the complaint – whether the appeal was competently brought MAGISTRATES – JURISDICTION – LIMITATIONS AS TO TIME – where the appellant made an application that the prosecution be stayed on the basis that the complaint and summons was brought out of time – whether the “complainant” was the public officer, or the department for which they were an officer and/or employee – whether the magistrate erred in refusing the application by the appellant for a permanent stay of prosecution
Justices Act 1886, s 42, s 222, s 223, s 225 Environmental Protection Act 1994, s 497 Bienstein v Bienstein (2003) 195 ALR 225 Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 164 CLR 502 Cross Country Realty Pty Ltd v Peebles [2007] 2 Qd R 254 Crothers v Sheil (1933) 49 CLR 399 Foxpine Pty Ltd v Collings [2001] QCA 355 Heley v Johnson [2013] QDC 345 Ipswich City Council v Dixonbuild Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 98 Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd (2008) 167 FCR 372 Paulger v Hall [2003] 2 Qd R 294 Plaintiff S164/2018 v Minister for Home Affairs (2018) 361 ALR 8 Schneider v Curtis [1967] Qd R 300 Smith v Ash [2011] 2 Qd R 175 Smith v Baldwin, ex parte Smith [1979] Qd R 380 Steiner v Seri [2012] QCA 226 Thiele v Davis (2000) 165 QGIG 23 Witheyman v Van Riet [2008] 2 Qd R 587
COUNSEL:	M Wyles QC, with B Murphy, for the appellant J Hunter QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	K&L Gates for the appellant Department of Environment and Science for the respondent