Young v Crime and Corruption Commission - [2018] QSC 12

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2018] QSC 12

PARTIES:

GREGORY RAYMOND YOUNG (BANKRUPT)

(plaintiff)

v
CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 12210 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 February 2018

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

The claim filed 20 November 2011 and the amended statement of claim filed 31 January 2018 be struck out.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – FRIVOLOUS OR VEXATIOUS PLEADING – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENCE – OTHERWISE ABUSE OF PROCESS - where the defendant applied to strike out the plaintiff’s claim and amended statement of claim – whether the claim and amended statement of claim should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being scandalous, vexatious and an otherwise abuse of process of the court Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 16(e), r 171(1)(a), r 171(1)(c)

COUNSEL:

Respondent/plaintiff for himself

B McMillan for the applicant/defendant instructed by the Crime and Corruption Commission

Gregory Raymond Young has commenced proceedings against the Crime and Corruption Commission. The CCC seeks orders setting aside the Claim and Amended Statement of Claim. It relies on the provisions of r 16 and r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
It should first be observed that the Amended Statement of Claim (ASOC) is, with some irrelevant exceptions, entirely inconsistent with the rules contained in the UCPR concerning the manner in which pleadings are to be drawn. But, the inadequacy of the pleading is not confined to mere matters of form.
In order to fully comprehend the awkward reasoning which underpins the ASOC, it would be necessary to set it out in full. That, though, is not an appropriate course of action in these circumstances – the ASOC is some 200 paragraphs long. It will be sufficient if I set out some representative examples of the pleading.
The pleading is based on a series of misapprehensions by the plaintiff as to the relationship between him and the Crime and Corruption Commission, the effect and purpose of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001, and the effect and purpose of the Criminal Code 1899. Layered upon that is a misunderstanding of the law relating to fiduciary relationships and negligence. Complicating that further is the plaintiff’s misunderstanding of the relief which might be available in this Court if a cause of action were to be demonstrated.
In the ASOC Mr Young seeks a large number of orders. For example, he seeks:
(a)a “finding” that he was not guilty of the alleged sexual harassment of Mrs Rebecca Shields whilst they were employed by Gold Coast City Council in 2005 and the “plaintiff was in psychiatric distress as a consequence of constant workplace harassment”,
(b)an order that “the finding by the Southport Magistrate on 2 May 2007 in the proceedings brought…

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 Young v Crime and Corruption Commission 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: [2018] QSC 12
Decision Date: 9 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Young v Crime and Corruption Commission arose in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the defendant, the Crime and Corruption Commission, sought to strike out the plaintiff’s claim and amended statement of claim. The plaintiff, Mr Young, filed his initial claim on 20 November 2011, and an amended statement of claim on 31 January 2018. The central issue before the court was whether these pleadings should be struck out under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), specifically rule 16(e) and rule 171(1)(a) and (c), on the grounds that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were scandalous, vexatious, or constituted an abuse of the court's process.

The court considered whether Mr Young's claims were legally viable and whether they were brought in good faith. In examining the pleadings, the court found that the claims were not supported by any plausible legal basis or factual evidence and amounted to a baseless attempt to harass the Commission. The court also noted that the claims had been repeatedly filed and refiled despite clear legal advice to the contrary, indicating an abuse of the court process. The plaintiff's conduct was deemed to be scandalous and vexatious, as it sought to undermine the integrity of the Commission without any legitimate legal foundation.

In light of the above, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s claim and amended statement of claim should indeed be struck out. The court held that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were vexatious, constituting an abuse of the court’s process. Consequently, the court ordered that the claim filed on 20 November 2011 and the amended statement of claim filed on 31 January 2018 be struck out in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

The claim filed 20 November 2011 and the amended statement of claim filed 31 January 2018 be struck out.

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:	Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2018] QSC 12
PARTIES:	GREGORY RAYMOND YOUNG (BANKRUPT) (plaintiff) v CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 12210 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 February 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 February 2018
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	The claim filed 20 November 2011 and the amended statement of claim filed 31 January 2018 be struck out.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – FRIVOLOUS OR VEXATIOUS PLEADING – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENCE – OTHERWISE ABUSE OF PROCESS - where the defendant applied to strike out the plaintiff’s claim and amended statement of claim – whether the claim and amended statement of claim should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being scandalous, vexatious and an otherwise abuse of process of the court Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 16(e), r 171(1)(a), r 171(1)(c)
COUNSEL:	Respondent/plaintiff for himself B McMillan for the applicant/defendant instructed by the Crime and Corruption Commission