SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Ketchell v Wynch & Anor [2001] QCA 391 PARTIES: GLENN ROBERT KETCHELL
(appellant/applicant)
v
GARY EDWARD DONALD WYNCH
(first respondent/first respondent)
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE
(second respondent/second respondent)FILE NO/S: Appeal No 5994 of 2001
DC No 113 of 2001DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Application for leave s118 DCA (Civil)
Application for Extension of timeORIGINATING COURT: District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON: 21 September 2001 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 21 August 2001 JUDGES: Davies, Thomas and Williams JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDER: 1. Extend time for the application for leave to appeal to 21 August 2001;
2. Grant leave to appeal against the decision of the District Court at Townsville given on 29 May 2001 in proceedings DC No 113 of 2001;
3. Allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Court dated 29 May 2001;
4. Remit the matter to the District Court for determination according to law;
5. Order that the first respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
CATCHWORDS: TAXES AND DUTIES – CUSTOMS AND EXCISE – PENAL PROVISIONS – FORFEITURE – JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE IN CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS - where applicant’s vehicles were alleged to contain forfeited goods and were seized by the first respondent pursuant to s 116(1)(e) Excise Act 1901 (Cth) – procedure in “taking” goods before a court of summary jurisdiction under s 9 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
POLICE – RIGHTS POWERS AND DUTIES – SEARCH, SEIZURE AND DETENTION OF PROPERTY - where respondent police officer instituted proceedings in Magistrates Court by way of an application for condemnation pursuant to s 9 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – procedures for state and federal police when seizing property discussed – regime under Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) abolishes former procedure under Justices Act – Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) s 425 – Justices Act s 39, s 222
PROCEDURE – COURTS – EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION - EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION WHERE NO PROCEDURE SPECIFIED – FEDERAL JURISDICTION – INFERIOR COURTS – investing of state courts with federal jurisdiction – state procedure in respect of jurisdiction conferred by s 9 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - discussion of legislative regime governing condemnation of goods proceedings
PROCEDURE – INFERIOR COURTS – MAGISTRATES COURTS – PRACTICE – INITIATING PROCEDURES – whether mode of commencement by application under r 11 UCPR correct – where jurisdiction conferred directly on Magistrates Court as a court of summary jurisdiction by s 9 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – nature of a court of summary jurisdiction – jurisdiction and procedure conferred respectively by Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld) – stream of procedure applicable to jurisdiction conferred by s 137 Excise Act 1901 (Cth)
PROCEDURE – INFERIOR COURTS – QUEENSLAND – MAGISTRATES APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – FROM WHAT DECISIONS AND ON WHAT GROUNDS APPEAL LIES – whether applicant had no right…
Continue reading Wynch v Ketchell
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Wynch v Ketchell [2001] QCA 391
- Case
- [2001] QCA 391
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the legislative frameworks governing the procedures for seizing and condemning property under both federal and state laws. It found that the procedures outlined in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) should be applied, superseding the older Justices Act. The court also considered the nature of the Magistrates Court as a court of summary jurisdiction and whether the application for condemnation was properly initiated. Furthermore, the court discussed the meaning of "action" in the context of the Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld) and whether the applicant had the right to appeal the decision of the District Court.
The court concluded that the application for condemnation did not comply with the required statutory procedures, particularly concerning the mode of commencement. It found that the term "action" in the context of the right to appeal should be given its ordinary meaning, and the present proceedings were correctly regarded as an "action." The court granted leave to appeal, set aside the District Court's order, and remitted the matter to the District Court for proper determination according to law. Additionally, it ordered the first respondent to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal.
The court made several orders, including extending the time for the application for leave to appeal, granting leave to appeal, setting aside the District Court's decision, remitting the matter for further proceedings, and ordering the first respondent to pay the appellant's costs. These orders were designed to ensure that the legal processes were followed correctly and that the applicant's rights were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Extend time for the application for leave to appeal to 21 August 2001;
2. Grant leave to appeal against the decision of the District Court at Townsville given on 29 May 2001 in proceedings DC No 113 of 2001;
3. Allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Court dated 29 May 2001;
4. Remit the matter to the District Court for determination according to law;
5. Order that the first respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
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.