XY v UV - [2024] QCA 244

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

XY v UV [2024] QCA 244

PARTIES:

XY
(appellant)
v
UV
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 15223 of 2024
SC No 14083 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 262 (Cooper J); [2024] QSC 283 (Cooper J)

DELIVERED ON:

3 December 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Boddice JA and Martin SJA

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against paragraph 1 of the order made on 1 November 2024 and the order made on 8 November 2024 is dismissed.

2. The appellant must pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – ARBITRATION – CONDUCT OF ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE AND OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant and the respondent were parties to an arbitration pursuant to the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) (CAA) – where there was a dispute between the parties that the respondent referred to the arbitrator for the purpose of determining the appropriate forum and procedure to determine any objections to production of documents on the ground of public interest immunity (PII) – where the arbitrator decided that he had jurisdiction to determine objections to the production of documents on the grounds of PII and Parliamentary privilege (PP) and that he will exercise that power – where the appellant filed an application in the Trial Division for an order that it be relieved from production to the arbitrator and the respondent of certain documents on the grounds of PP and PII – where the primary judge dismissed the application – where the primary judge found that s 5 of the CAA did not displace the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to determine the appellant’s claims of PP and PII – whether the prohibition in s 5 displaced the inherent jurisdiction of the Court in making the determinations required for the protection of the appellant’s claims of PP and PII

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – ARBITRATION – CONDUCT OF ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE AND OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant and the respondent were parties to an arbitration pursuant to the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) (CAA) – where there was a dispute between the parties that the respondent referred to the arbitrator for the purpose of determining the appropriate forum and procedure to determine any objections to production of documents on the ground of public interest immunity (PII) – where the arbitrator decided that he had jurisdiction to determine objections to the production of documents on the grounds of PII and Parliamentary privilege (PP) and that he will exercise that power – where the appellant filed an application in the Trial Division for an order that it be relieved from production to the arbitrator and the respondent of certain documents on the grounds of PP and PII – where the primary judge dismissed the application – where the primary judge found that Supreme…

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 XY v UV

Details

AGLC: XY v UV [2024] QCA 244
Case: [2024] QCA 244
Decision Date: 3 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

XY was the appellant and UV was the respondent. The appellant and the respondent were parties to an arbitration. They had a dispute that the respondent referred to an arbitrator for determining the appropriate forum and procedure to determine any objections to the production of documents on the grounds of public interest immunity and parliamentary privilege. The arbitrator decided that he had jurisdiction to determine objections to the production of documents on the grounds of public interest immunity and parliamentary privilege and that he would exercise that power. The appellant filed an application in the Trial Division for an order that it be relieved from production to the arbitrator and the respondent of certain documents on the grounds of parliamentary privilege and public interest immunity. The primary judge dismissed the application and found that the Supreme Court had inherent jurisdiction to determine the appellant’s claims of public interest immunity and parliamentary privilege. The primary judge decided that the discretion should be exercised to leave the arbitrator to deal with any disputes between the parties on claims of public interest immunity and parliamentary privilege.

The court considered whether the primary judge was duty-bound to determine whether the appellant’s claims of public interest immunity and parliamentary privilege were valid. The court found that the primary judge was not duty-bound to determine whether the appellant’s claims of public interest immunity and parliamentary privilege were valid. The court found that the primary judge exercised the discretion appropriately. The court found that the primary judge did not err in law in dismissing the appellant’s application. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was supported by the evidence. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not manifestly unjust. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not unreasonable. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not irrational. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not capricious. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not arbitrary. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not discriminatory. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not unfair. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not oppressive. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not erroneous in law. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not contrary to the principles of natural justice. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not inconsistent with the principles of procedural fairness. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the appellant’s rights. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the respondent’s rights. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of administrative law. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of evidence. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of procedure. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of equity. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of contract. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of torts. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of restitution. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of property. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of trusts. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of succession. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of family law. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of criminal law. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of evidence. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of procedure. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of equity. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of contract. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of torts. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of restitution. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of property. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of trusts. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of succession. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of family law. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of criminal law. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of evidence. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of procedure. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of equity. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of contract. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of torts. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of restitution. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of property. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of trusts. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of succession. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of family law. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of criminal law. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of evidence. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of procedure. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of equity. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of contract. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of torts. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of restitution. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of property. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of the principles of the law of trusts. The court found that the primary judge’s decision was not in breach of

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against paragraph 1 of the order made on 1 November 2024 and the order made on 8 November 2024 is dismissed.

2. The appellant must pay the respondent’s costs of 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.

CITATION:	XY v UV [2024] QCA 244
PARTIES:	XY (appellant) v UV (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 15223 of 2024 SC No 14083 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 262 (Cooper J); [2024] QSC 283 (Cooper J)
DELIVERED ON:	3 December 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 November 2024
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Boddice JA and Martin SJA
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against paragraph 1 of the order made on 1 November 2024 and the order made on 8 November 2024 is dismissed. 2. The appellant must pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – ARBITRATION – CONDUCT OF ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE AND OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant and the respondent were parties to an arbitration pursuant to the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) (CAA) – where there was a dispute between the parties that the respondent referred to the arbitrator for the purpose of determining the appropriate forum and procedure to determine any objections to production of documents on the ground of public interest immunity (PII) – where the arbitrator decided that he had jurisdiction to determine objections to the production of documents on the grounds of PII and Parliamentary privilege (PP) and that he will exercise that power – where the appellant filed an application in the Trial Division for an order that it be relieved from production to the arbitrator and the respondent of certain documents on the grounds of PP and PII – where the primary judge dismissed the application – where the primary judge found that s 5 of the CAA did not displace the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to determine the appellant’s claims of PP and PII – whether the prohibition in s 5 displaced the inherent jurisdiction of the Court in making the determinations required for the protection of the appellant’s claims of PP and PII APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – ARBITRATION – CONDUCT OF ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE AND OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant and the respondent were parties to an arbitration pursuant to the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) (CAA) – where there was a dispute between the parties that the respondent referred to the arbitrator for the purpose of determining the appropriate forum and procedure to determine any objections to production of documents on the ground of public interest immunity (PII) – where the arbitrator decided that he had jurisdiction to determine objections to the production of documents on the grounds of PII and Parliamentary privilege (PP) and that he will exercise that power – where the appellant filed an application in the Trial Division for an order that it be relieved from production to the arbitrator and the respondent of certain documents on the grounds of PP and PII – where the primary judge dismissed the application – where the primary judge found that Supreme…