Wood v Watkins - [2007] QDC 115

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wood v Watkins [2007] QDC 115

PARTIES:

GREGORY MARK WOOD

Applicant

and

WATKINS

Respondent

FILE NO:

2086/06

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

4, 5 June 2007

JUDGE:

Judge Brabazon QC

ORDER:

Appeal allowed. Suspend licence for 12 months.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES – Appeal against a reviewed decision to cancel an authority under the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 – where appeal is by way of re-hearing – whether the cancellation of the authority should be set aside and replaced with period of suspension

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 s 43, 63, 204B
Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 2004 s 163, 164, 221
Transport Planning and Co-ordination Act 1994 s 34, 36, 36B

Cases considered:
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Black & White Cab Co. Pty Ltd v Kelk (1984) 2 Qd R 484
Bannister & Ors v D-G Dept of Corrective Services [2002] QSC 469
R v Wood (1998) QCA 029
R v Oberin (2002) QCA 444
R v Dean (2006) QCA 256

COUNSEL:

Mr H Scott-Mackenzie for the applicant
Mr J Logan SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Wellners Lawyers for the applicant
C.W. Lohe Crown Solicitors for the respondent

The Issues

Mr Wood is a professional fisherman, now 49 years old. He has always been a fisherman. He catches crabs around Moreton Bay. He has licences allowing him to fish and to be the skipper of his boat. He has had his skipper’s licence for 26 years.

On 31 May 2006 his Skipper Grade 3 licence was cancelled. A stay of that order was granted by this court on 15 September 2006.

The cancellation means that he can continue to fish, and take crabs, but he is not entitled to be the skipper of his boat. It is submitted for Mr Wood that cancellation should be set aside, to be replaced with a period of suspension. For the respondent, it is submitted that the suspension was cancellation, and should not be disturbed.

The Cancellation

The Maritime Safety Branch is part of Queensland Transport. Its Chief Executive and General Manager have certain administrative powers. They, or a delegate, can grant an “authority” according to Part 6 of the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 2004. In this case, the authority is Mr Wood’s licence to be the master of his fishing ship – in this case a 17 foot metre aluminium boat, powered by an outboard engine, and controlled from a central console.

If they consider a ground exists to suspend or cancel the authority, they may give the holder of the authority a written notice. It must state:

(a) the proposed action.
(b) the grounds for the proposed action.
(c)an outline of the facts and circumstances forming the basis for the grounds.
(d)…
(e)an invitation to the holder to show within a stated time, which must be at least 30 days, why the proposed action should not be taken.

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 Wood v Watkins

Details

AGLC: Wood v Watkins [2007] QDC 115
Case: [2007] QDC 115
Decision Date: 22 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wood v Watkins involved a dispute where the appellant, Wood, sought to appeal a decision by the respondent, Watkins, who was acting under the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994. The crux of the matter was the respondent's decision to cancel the appellant's marine safety authority. This decision followed an investigation into alleged breaches of the Act by the appellant, which included charges of failing to maintain a proper lookout and neglecting to follow a safe course.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the cancellation of the appellant's authority was justified under the statutory provisions and whether the appeal process was correctly followed. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the appeal was properly conducted as a re-hearing and if the severity of the penalty was proportionate to the alleged breaches.

The court held that the appeal was appropriately treated as a re-hearing, providing a fresh consideration of the evidence and the penalty. It was noted that the statutory framework allowed for such appeals to be conducted in this manner. The court further found that the evidence did not warrant the complete cancellation of the appellant's authority but rather suggested a lesser penalty. The court reasoned that the appellant's actions, while serious, did not merit the complete loss of their authority. Instead, a period of suspension was deemed more appropriate.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant's licence be suspended for a period of twelve months. This decision balanced the need to uphold marine safety standards with the principle of proportionality in administrative penalties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed. Suspend licence for 12 months.

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:	Wood v Watkins [2007] QDC 115
PARTIES:	GREGORY MARK WOOD Applicant and WATKINS Respondent
FILE NO:	2086/06
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	22 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	4, 5 June 2007
JUDGE:	Judge Brabazon QC
ORDER:	Appeal allowed. Suspend licence for 12 months.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES – Appeal against a reviewed decision to cancel an authority under the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 – where appeal is by way of re-hearing – whether the cancellation of the authority should be set aside and replaced with period of suspension Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 s 43, 63, 204B Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 2004 s 163, 164, 221 Transport Planning and Co-ordination Act 1994 s 34, 36, 36B Cases considered: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Black & White Cab Co. Pty Ltd v Kelk (1984) 2 Qd R 484 Bannister & Ors v D-G Dept of Corrective Services [2002] QSC 469 R v Wood (1998) QCA 029 R v Oberin (2002) QCA 444 R v Dean (2006) QCA 256
COUNSEL:	Mr H Scott-Mackenzie for the applicant Mr J Logan SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Wellners Lawyers for the applicant C.W. Lohe Crown Solicitors for the respondent