Young v Crime and Corruption Commission - [2018] QCA 190

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2018] QCA 190

PARTIES:

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

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1461 of 2018
SC No 12210 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Miscellaneous Application – Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2018] QSC 12

DELIVERED ON:

17 August 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 May 2018

JUDGE:

Morrison JA

ORDERS:

1.   Leave is granted to the applicant to file a Further Notice of Appeal, limited to the following grounds:

The learned primary judge erred:

(i)       by denying the appellant natural justice or procedural fairness by the refusal of his request for an adjournment;

(ii)      by giving inadequate reasons for not granting the adjournment;

(iii)     by striking out the Claim and Amended Statement of Claim as the pleading complied with the UCPR; and

(iv)     by giving inadequate reasons for concluding that the pleading did not comply with the UCPR and should be struck out.

2.   The applicant is to pay the costs of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

QUEENSLAND CIVIL PRACTICE – UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 – APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS CH 18 – PROCEDURAL – RULE 747 CONTENT OF NOTICE OF APPEAL – where the applicant instituted proceedings against the Crime and Corruption Commission, which then applied to set aside the Claim and Amended Statement of Claim – that application was successful and the Claim and Statement of Claim was struck out – where the applicant appealed from that decision – where due to the contents of that Notice of Appeal it came before the President of the Court of Appeal – where his Honour found that the Notice of Appeal did not articulate any rational ground of appeal – where the applicant seeks the leave of the Court to file another Amended Notice of Appeal – whether the applicant’s draft Notice of Appeal could be articulated in a way that could be permitted to go forward to the Court of Appeal

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 747(1)(b)

Young v Crime and Corruption Commission[2018] QCA 55, related

COUNSEL:

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

SOLICITORS:

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

MORRISON JA: Mr Young instituted proceedings against the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC), which applied to set aside the Claim and Amended Statement of Claim. That application was successful, with the Claim and Statement of Claim being struck out on 9 February 2008.[1]
[1]Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2018] QSC 12.
On 12 February 2018 Mr Young appealed from that decision. A Further Amended Notice of Appeal was filed on 7 March 2018. Because of its contents it came before Sofronoff P on 28 March 2018. His Honour found that the Further Amended Notice of Appeal did not articulate any rational ground of appeal, and the accompanying Outline of Argument failed to comply with the…

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] QCA 190
Decision Date: 17 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Young, appealed a decision of the primary judge who dismissed his claim against the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC). The primary judge had struck out Young's claim and amended statement of claim, finding that it did not comply with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. Young's appeal was initially dismissed by the President of the Court of Appeal because the notice of appeal did not articulate a rational ground for appeal. Young sought leave to file an amended notice of appeal, limited to specific grounds of error. The court was required to determine whether the proposed grounds of appeal were sufficient to warrant permission to amend the notice of appeal.

The court held that the President's order was limited to ensuring that a compliant notice of appeal was filed. The court found that the proposed grounds of appeal were sufficient and aligned with Rule 747(1)(b) of the UCPR. The court rejected the suggestion that it needed to explore the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal. The court concluded that the proposed grounds of appeal were sufficient and limited to issues of procedural fairness, reasons for refusal of an adjournment, compliance with the UCPR, and reasons for striking out the claim.

The court granted Young leave to file a further notice of appeal, limited to the specified grounds of error. The court emphasised that the proposed grounds of appeal were confined to the denial of natural justice, inadequate reasons for refusing an adjournment, the compliance of the pleading with the UCPR, and inadequate reasons for concluding that the pleading did not comply with the UCPR. The applicant was also ordered to pay the costs of the application.

In summary, the court allowed Young to amend his notice of appeal to include specific grounds of error, but restricted the scope of the appeal to the specified issues. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave is granted to the applicant to file a Further Notice of Appeal, limited to the following grounds:

The learned primary judge erred:

(i) by denying the appellant natural justice or procedural fairness by the refusal of his request for an adjournment;

(ii) by giving inadequate reasons for not granting the adjournment;

(iii) by striking out the Claim and Amended Statement of Claim as the pleading complied with the UCPR; and

(iv) by giving inadequate reasons for concluding that the pleading did not comply with the UCPR and should be struck out.

2. The applicant is to pay the costs of the application.

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

Further, I reject the contention that in deciding this particular application it is necessary or desirable that I explore the prospects of those grounds. The reasons given by the President for making the order under which Mr Young now applies, in my view, were not intended to do more than see if a comprehensible or intelligible notice of appeal could be produced, and one which complied with Rule 747(1)(b) of the UCPR. The order went no further than the filing of a compliant notice of appeal. It did not extend to the outline that would eventually follow such a document, nor to the ultimate prospect of the grounds.Conclusion For these reasons I would grant leave to file another notice of appeal, but only to reflect the terms outlined in paragraph [19] above. The orders are:1.Leave is granted to the applicant to file a Further Notice of Appeal, limited to the following grounds:The learned primary judge erred:(i) by denying the appellant natural justice or procedural fairness by the refusal of his request for an adjournment;(ii) by giving inadequate reasons for not granting the adjournment;(iii) by striking out the Claim and Amended Statement of Claim as the pleading complied with the UCPR; and(iv) by giving inadequate reasons for concluding that the pleading did not comply with the UCPR and should be struck out.2.The applicant is to pay the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2018] QCA 190
PARTIES:	GREGORY RAYMOND YOUNG (applicant) v CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 1461 of 2018 SC No 12210 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Miscellaneous Application – Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2018] QSC 12
DELIVERED ON:	17 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 May 2018
JUDGE:	Morrison JA
ORDERS:	1. Leave is granted to the applicant to file a Further Notice of Appeal, limited to the following grounds: The learned primary judge erred: (i) by denying the appellant natural justice or procedural fairness by the refusal of his request for an adjournment; (ii) by giving inadequate reasons for not granting the adjournment; (iii) by striking out the Claim and Amended Statement of Claim as the pleading complied with the UCPR; and (iv) by giving inadequate reasons for concluding that the pleading did not comply with the UCPR and should be struck out. 2. The applicant is to pay the costs of the application.
CATCHWORDS:	QUEENSLAND CIVIL PRACTICE – UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 – APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS CH 18 – PROCEDURAL – RULE 747 CONTENT OF NOTICE OF APPEAL – where the applicant instituted proceedings against the Crime and Corruption Commission, which then applied to set aside the Claim and Amended Statement of Claim – that application was successful and the Claim and Statement of Claim was struck out – where the applicant appealed from that decision – where due to the contents of that Notice of Appeal it came before the President of the Court of Appeal – where his Honour found that the Notice of Appeal did not articulate any rational ground of appeal – where the applicant seeks the leave of the Court to file another Amended Notice of Appeal – whether the applicant’s draft Notice of Appeal could be articulated in a way that could be permitted to go forward to the Court of Appeal Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 747(1)(b) Young v Crime and Corruption Commission[2018] QCA 55, related
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B I McMillan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Crime and Corruption Commission for the respondent