Young v Crime and Corruption Commission - [2019] QCA 189

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2019] QCA 189

PARTIES:

GREGORY RAYMOND YOUNG
(appellant)
v
CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1461 of 2018
SC No 12210 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2018] QSC 12 (Martin J)

DELIVERED ON:

13 September 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 May 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison and McMurdo JJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENCE – where the appellant filed a claim against the Crime and Corruption Commission, seeking damages for negligence and breach of statutory duties – where the appellant alleged that the Commission breached a duty of care owed to him when the Commission purportedly failed to respond appropriately to a series of complaints made by him to the Commission about his former employer, a local council – where the claim was struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was vexatious – whether the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) imposes a duty on the Commission to facilitate the recovery of compensation or other redress for someone who may have been a victim of a major crime or corruption – whether that Act provides a personal right of action against the Commission to a person who was the victim of a major crime or corruption – whether the appellant’s claim was bound to fail and was rightly struck out

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 4, s 25, s 33, s 35

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
B I McMillan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Crime and Corruption Commission for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of McMurdo JA and the order proposed by his Honour.
MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of McMurdo JA and agree with those reasons and the order his Honour proposes.
McMURDO JA: On 20 November 2017, the appellant, Mr Young, filed a claim in the trial division against the respondent (the “CCC”). He claimed damages for negligence and breach of statutory duties, as well as equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duties. The CCC filed a notice of intention to defend, which pleaded simply that the proceeding was frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process. Mr Young then filed an amended statement of claim on 31 January 2018. After a hearing on 2 February 2018, Martin J struck out the claim and the amended statement of claim,[1] and this is an appeal against that order.
[1]Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2018] QSC 12 (“Reasons”).
In essence, Mr Young alleged that the CCC had failed to respond appropriately to a series of complaints which, in a period from 2011 to 2017, he had made to…

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: [2019] QCA 189
Decision Date: 13 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Young, filed a claim against the Crime and Corruption Commission, alleging that the Commission failed to respond appropriately to his complaints about his former employer, a local council, thereby breaching a duty of care. The Commission sought to have the claim struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was vexatious. The appellant contested the decision, leading to an appeal. The central legal issues were whether the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) imposed a duty on the Commission to facilitate the recovery of compensation or other redress for victims of major crimes or corruption, and whether the Act provided a personal right of action against the Commission to such victims. Additionally, the court had to determine if the appellant's claim was bound to fail and was rightly struck out.

The court held that the Act did not impose a duty on the Commission to facilitate the recovery of compensation or other redress for victims of major crimes or corruption, nor did it provide a personal right of action against the Commission to such victims. The court found that the appellant's claim was bound to fail and was rightly struck out as it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The appellant's case relied on a misinterpretation of the statutory framework, and the court held that the claim was vexatious and lacked merit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

This decision underscores the importance of correctly interpreting statutory provisions and the limitations of actions against public bodies like the Crime and Corruption Commission. The court's dismissal of the appeal affirms the principle that not every statutory provision confers a personal right of action, and that claims must be grounded in a proper understanding of the relevant law. The final orders were that the appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the lower court's decision to strike out the appellant's claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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 [2019] QCA 189
PARTIES:	GREGORY RAYMOND YOUNG (appellant) v CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 1461 of 2018 SC No 12210 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2018] QSC 12 (Martin J)
DELIVERED ON:	13 September 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 May 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison and McMurdo JJA
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENCE – where the appellant filed a claim against the Crime and Corruption Commission, seeking damages for negligence and breach of statutory duties – where the appellant alleged that the Commission breached a duty of care owed to him when the Commission purportedly failed to respond appropriately to a series of complaints made by him to the Commission about his former employer, a local council – where the claim was struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was vexatious – whether the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) imposes a duty on the Commission to facilitate the recovery of compensation or other redress for someone who may have been a victim of a major crime or corruption – whether that Act provides a personal right of action against the Commission to a person who was the victim of a major crime or corruption – whether the appellant’s claim was bound to fail and was rightly struck out Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 4, s 25, s 33, s 35
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf B I McMillan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Crime and Corruption Commission for the respondent