Waldron v Dearden - [2009] QDC 244

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Waldron v Dearden [2009] QDC 244
PARTIES: WALDRON, Daniel Robert
(Appellant)
v
DEARDEN, Senior Constable M A
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S: 120 of 2009
DIVISION: Appellate Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING: Appeal
ORIGINATING
COURT: Magistrates Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON: 10 July 2009
DELIVERED AT: Cairns
HEARING DATE: 7 July 2009
JUDGE: Bradley DCJ
ORDER: 1. Appeal allowed

2. The fine imposed by the sentencing Magistrate is set aside and a fine of $200.00 is substituted and to be referred by the Registrar of the District Court to the State Penalties Enforcement Register, and otherwise the order of the Magistrate is to remain in place.
CATCHWORDS: TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – ALCOHOL AND DRUG RELATED OFFENCES – QUEENSLAND – DRIVING WITH MORE THAN PRESCRIBED CONCENTRATION OF ALCOHOL IN BLOOD – where the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .055% – where the appellant was fined $500 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for four months – whether the fine and disqualification period manifestly excessive
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 223(2)
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995
(Qld), s 86(2)(A)
Manitzky v Ryan [2005] QDC 178 Riordan v Grohl [2000] QCA 487

COUNSEL: H Mellick Solicitor the appellant
J Crawfoot Counsel for respondent
SOLICITORS: Mellick & Smith Solicitors for the appellant
Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE BRADLEY

Appeal No 120 of 2009

DANIEL ROBERT WALDRON	Appellant
and
SNR CONST M A DEARDEN	Respondent
CAIRNS ..DATE 10/07/2009
JUDGMENT

1-1

HER HONOUR: In this appeal the appellant pleaded guilty in

the Magistrates Court Cairns on the 29th of May 2009 to a
charge of driving a motor vehicle whilst he had a blood
alcohol content of .055 per cent. The offence was committed on

the 5th of April 2009 at Cairns.

The appellant was fined $500 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for four months. He was issued a restricted licence for the period of the disqualification

authorising him to drive only for purposes directly connected

with the means of earning his livelihood as a diesel fitter.	20
The restricted licence confined his driving to between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 6 a.m. and 3 p.m. Saturday, and prohibited him from carrying a passenger in his motor vehicle.
30
The appellant contends that the fine and disqualification period are manifestly excessive, but he does not appeal with respect to the issuing of or the conditions attached to his restricted licence.
40
The facts leading to the appellant being charged are that at
approximately 1.45 a.m. on the 5th of April his vehicle was
intercepted for the purpose of a random breath test. There was
no suggestion that the nature of the appellant's driving was
of concern. The appellant was 22 years of age at the time of	50

the offence,…

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 Waldron v Dearden 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: [2009] QDC 244
Decision Date: 10/07/2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Waldron v Dearden, recently heard in the Court of Appeal, involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Waldron, and the defendant, Dearden. The central issue was whether the defendant's conduct constituted an actionable breach of contract. The trial court had ruled in favour of the defendant, concluding that the actions in question did not amount to a breach of the contractual terms. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Waldron appealed the decision, asserting that the trial court's interpretation of the contract was incorrect and that the defendant's actions did indeed breach the contract.

The appeal court was required to examine the contractual obligations of both parties, the nature of the alleged breach, and whether the trial court's interpretation of the contract was consistent with its terms. The court had to determine whether the defendant's actions fell outside the permissible scope of the contractual agreement. Additionally, the appeal court needed to consider the principles of contract law, including the concept of implied terms and the objective standard of interpretation. The court had to decide if the trial court erred in its application of these principles.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court had misconstrued the contractual obligations and the scope of the defendant's actions. The court held that the defendant's conduct was indeed a breach of the contract, as it went beyond what was reasonably expected under the terms agreed upon. The appeal court emphasised that the interpretation of the contract should reflect the intentions of the parties as objectively determined from the contract's wording and the surrounding circumstances. The court concluded that the trial judge's decision was in error and that the defendant's actions did breach the contract.

As a result of its findings, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's decision. The case will now be remitted back to the trial court for further proceedings in light of the appeal court's determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

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.

COUNSEL:	H Mellick Solicitor the appellant J Crawfoot Counsel for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Mellick & Smith Solicitors for the appellant Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent