Young v Crime and Corruption Commission - [2021] QCA 256

[2021] QCA 256
COURT OF APPEAL
MULLINS JA
Appeal No 1461 of 2018
SC No 12210 of 2017
GREGORY RAYMOND YOUNG Applicant
v
CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION Respondent
BRISBANE
FRIDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 2021
JUDGMENT
[1]MULLINS JA: Mr Young brought Proceeding No BS 12210 of 2017 in the Trial Division against the respondent. His claim and amended statement of claim were struck out by Martin J. Mr Young appealed against that order in Appeal No 1461 of 2018. That appeal was dismissed with costs by the Court of Appeal on 13 September 2019: Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2019] QCA 189 (the reasons).

Mr Young had alleged that the respondent failed to respond appropriately to a series of complaints which he made to the respondent about the Gold Coast City Council which employed him for nearly 10 years until May 2005 when he was summarily dismissed. He pleaded that his complaints of misconduct and offences by the Council’s employees were not properly investigated by the respondent. He claimed the respondent owed a duty of care to him in responding to his complaints which it breached and the respondent owed a fiduciary duty to him which it also breached.
The reasons explain why Mr Young was misconceived in bringing his claim against the respondent. McMurdo JA (with whom Fraser and Morrison JJA agreed) summed up the position in the reasons at [17] as follows:
“The fundamental flaw affecting the entirety of Mr Young’s case was a misapprehension that the CCC has a duty to serve and protect the interests of individuals in that way, rather than to serve the public interest.”
Mr Young’s application to the High Court for special leave to appeal was refused on the basis the proposed appeal would have no realistic prospect of success: Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2019] HCASL 397.
Mr Young brought an application before McMurdo JA on 18 September 2020 seeking a different outcome from the dismissal of his appeal on the basis of r 668(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). That application was dismissed on the basis there were no newly discovered facts to engage the operation of r 668: Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2020] QCA 205. At the same time as dismissing that application, McMurdo JA ordered that Mr Young was not to file any further application in the Court of Appeal in Appeal No 1461 of 2018 without the leave of a judge of the Court.
Mr Young applied for leave to bring another application pursuant to r 668(1)(b) that was heard by Fraser JA on 30 October 2020. Mr Young was seeking an injunction against the respondent, or one or more of its officers, requiring a referral to the Minister for Local Government or an order by the Supreme Court referring to the Minister for resolution pursuant to s 120 and s 121 of the Local Government Act2009 (Qld) of a complaint the applicant lodged with the Commission after…

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: [2021] QCA 256
Decision Date: 26 NOVEMBER 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court of Appeal is an application by Gregory Raymond Young, the applicant, against the Crime and Corruption Commission, the respondent. Mr Young had previously brought a claim against the respondent which was dismissed by the Trial Division and subsequently, an appeal against that dismissal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Mr Young is now seeking leave to bring yet another application in the context of the existing appeal, pursuant to rule 667(2)(d) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant should be granted leave to bring the proposed application and, if so, what orders should be made in relation to any further leave applications in the existing appeal.

The court considered the reasons why Mr Young’s appeal was dismissed and the reasons why his subsequent applications for leave to bring further applications were also dismissed. The court noted that the proposed application was yet another attempt by Mr Young to reargue the same matter which had already been finally determined. The court also considered that there was no merit in the proposed application, and that any further leave applications should be made without notice to the respondent unless a judge of the court otherwise orders.

The court dismissed the leave application and made orders that any further leave applications in the existing appeal must be made without notice to the respondent, unless a judge of the court otherwise orders. The court also dismissed the application with costs and noted that the making of such an order was not meant to encourage Mr Young to bring further leave applications. The court concluded that the point had been reached where any further leave applications brought by Mr Young in the existing appeal should be made without notice to the respondent.

Orders