Young v Crime and Corruption Commission - [2020] QCA 205

[2020] QCA 205

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO JA

Appeal No 1461 of 2018
SC No 12210 of 2017

GREGORY RAYMOND YOUNG Applicant/Respondent

CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION Respondent/Applicant

BRISBANE

FRIDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2020

JUDGMENT

McMURDO JA: Mr GR Young brought a proceeding in the trial division against the Crime and Corruption Commission by a claim and statement of claim. In February 2018, Justice Martin ordered that the claim and the amended statement of claim, filed on 31 January 2018, be struck out: see [2018] QSC 12. Mr Young appealed to this Court, which dismissed his appeal by a judgment delivered on 13 September 2019: see [2019] QCA 189. In essence, the Court upheld the conclusions of Justice Martin that the claim and amended statement of claim raised no arguable cause of action and that, given the history of the proceeding, it was appropriate that not only the pleading but also the claim itself be struck out. On 11 December 2019, the High Court refused Mr Young’s application for special leave to appeal against this Court’s judgment.

Recently, on 4 September, Mr Young filed an application in this Court seeking a different outcome from that which resulted from the dismissal of his appeal last year. He sought orders in purported reliance upon r 668(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Under that rule a court may stay enforcement of its order if facts are discovered, after the order is made, that, if discovered in time, would have entitled the person against whom the order is made to an order or decision in the person’s favour or to a different order.

Mr Young has sworn two affidavits and presented extensive written submissions as to the basis for his returning to this Court seeking to revisit the effect of its judgment. He has also presented oral submissions this morning which confirm my impression of his present application, having read his extensive written material. In essence, Mr Young comes to this Court, not on the basis of newly discovered facts, but upon the basis of legal arguments which, it may be accepted for present purposes, were not presented to the Court when hearing his appeal last year. In that sense, it could be said that he has discovered things which were unknown to him at the time that the Court made an order to dismiss his appeal. But it is clear, beyond doubt, that he does not identify any newly discovered fact so as to engage the operation of r 668. Consequently, this application, filed on 4 September 2020, is bound to fail.

It is an application made upon a misconception of the operation of r 668. No purpose would be served by permitting this application to proceed further and it should be struck out.

The order will be that the application filed 4 September 2020 by Mr Young be dismissed. Subject to any submission that Mr Young might wish to make, it is my present view that it must be…

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: [2020] QCA 205
Decision Date: 18 SEPTEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Young v Crime and Corruption Commission, the applicant, Gregory Raymond Young, sought to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal against the striking out of his claim and amended statement of claim by the Supreme Court. The Crime and Corruption Commission, the respondent, opposed the application and sought an order under r 389A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, prohibiting the applicant from filing further applications without leave of the Court. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application and granted the Commission’s cross-application for an order under r 389A.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the application under r 668 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules was valid and whether the Court should grant the Commission’s application for an order under r 389A. The Court held that the application under r 668 was not valid as it was not based on newly discovered facts, but rather on legal arguments that were not presented during the previous appeal. The Court also held that the Commission’s application for an order under r 389A was valid as the applicant had made multiple applications in relation to the proceeding, which were frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s application and granted the Commission’s cross-application for an order under r 389A. The Court held that the application under r 668 was not valid as it was not based on newly discovered facts, but rather on legal arguments that were not presented during the previous appeal. The Court also held that the Commission’s application for an order under r 389A was valid as the applicant had made multiple applications in relation to the proceeding, which were frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The Court further held that the applicant must pay the costs of his application and of the Commission’s application, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders