Watts v Ellis - [2007] QCA 234

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Watts v Ellis [2007] QCA 234

PARTIES:

SHANE ANDREW WATTS
(applicant)
v
ROBERT EDWARD ELLIS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 61 of 2007
DC No 156 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time s118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bowen

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

23 July 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 July 2007

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED –where applicant made no appearance – where application considered on the merits – whether argument that applicant was not bound by relevant Queensland legislation is without substance – whether extension of time should be granted

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Water Act 2000 (Qld), s 269, s 814(1)

Bone v Mothershaw [2003] 2 Qd R 600; [2002] QCA 120;

Appeal No 294 of 2001, 12 April 2002, followed
Burns v TheState of Queensland & Croton[2006] QCA 235; Appeal No 526 of 2006, 23 June 2006, cited
Dore & Others v Penny [2006] QSC 125; SC No 564 of 2005, 5 May 2006, cited

COUNSEL:

No appearance for or on behalf of the applicant
D J Grealy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for or on behalf of the applicant
Crown Law for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: I will ask Jerrard J to deliver his reasons first.

JERRARD JA: This matter was an application for an extension of time within which to appeal from a decision given by a District Court on the 7th of March 2006 in its appellate jurisdiction dismissing an appeal from a judgment in the Magistrates Court at Bowen given on 27th October 2005.

The applicant, Mr Watts, did not appear either in person or by any representative on the hearing of this application set for hearing today. In the judgment in the Magistrates Court in October 2005 the learned Magistrate found Mr Watts guilty of committing two offences against s 814(1) of the Water Act 2000 (Qld).

Those were offences of excavating in a watercourse and of destroying the vegetation of a watercourse without a permit under s 269 of that Act. Mr Watts was fined and he was ordered to pay costs of Court. He appealed to the District Court but that appeal was dismissed and now he asks for an extension of time of almost one year within which to seek leave to appeal against that dismissal.

Mr Watts did not defend the proceedings in the Magistrates Court on the ground that he had not done, as was alleged against him, and or is it suggested in any argument advanced orally or in writing on…

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.

Continue reading Watts v Ellis

Details

AGLC: Watts v Ellis [2007] QCA 234
Case: [2007] QCA 234
Decision Date: 23 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Watts v Ellis involved an appeal from the appellant, Watts, seeking an extension of time to appeal a decision rendered by the District Court of Queensland. Watts sought an extension to appeal the decision on the grounds that they were not bound by the relevant Queensland legislation regarding the timeliness of such appeals. The respondent, Ellis, opposed the application, arguing that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any justifiable reason for the delay. The appeal pertained to the procedural aspects of the original decision, focusing on whether the appellant's failure to adhere to the prescribed time limits for filing an appeal could be excused, and if so, on what grounds.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had a valid basis for not adhering to the legislative time constraints for appealing, and if the argument that the Queensland legislation did not apply to the appellant held any merit. The court had to determine whether the appellant's absence at the original hearing provided a sufficient justification for the late appeal and whether the appellant's assertion of not being bound by Queensland law was valid. Additionally, the court assessed the merits of the appeal itself, to decide whether the appeal had any reasonable prospects of success.

The court found that the appellant's argument that they were not bound by Queensland legislation was without substance. The court noted that the appellant had made no appearance in the original proceedings, and thus had no valid grounds for claiming exemption from the statutory time limits. The court further held that the appellant had not provided any compelling reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The court concluded that the appellant's failure to appear at the original hearing did not constitute a justifiable reason for the late appeal. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed, with the court awarding costs against the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed with 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:	Watts v Ellis [2007] QCA 234
PARTIES:	SHANE ANDREW WATTS (applicant) v ROBERT EDWARD ELLIS (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 61 of 2007 DC No 156 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension of Time s118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bowen
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	23 July 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 July 2007
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED –where applicant made no appearance – where application considered on the merits – whether argument that applicant was not bound by relevant Queensland legislation is without substance – whether extension of time should be granted District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3) Water Act 2000 (Qld), s 269, s 814(1) Bone v Mothershaw [2003] 2 Qd R 600; [2002] QCA 120; Appeal No 294 of 2001, 12 April 2002, followed Burns v TheState of Queensland & Croton[2006] QCA 235; Appeal No 526 of 2006, 23 June 2006, cited Dore & Others v Penny [2006] QSC 125; SC No 564 of 2005, 5 May 2006, cited
COUNSEL:	No appearance for or on behalf of the applicant D J Grealy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for or on behalf of the applicant Crown Law for the respondent