Young v Crime and Corruption Commission - [2018] QCA 55

[2018] QCA 55

COURT OF APPEAL

SOFRONOFF P

Appeal No 1461 of 2018
SC No 12210 of 2017

GREGORY RAYMOND YOUNG Appellant

CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION Respondent

BRISBANE

WEDNESDAY, 28 MARCH 2018

JUDGMENT

SOFRONOFF P: On 9 February 2018 Martin J made an order striking out the appellant’s statement of claim. The appellant has filed an appeal against that order. The notice of appeal, which is the further amended notice of appeal, was filed on 7 March 2018. It contains 15 grounds. It’s enough in order to understand the nature of the document to quote some of the briefest of these 15 grounds. Subparagraph (b) on page 2 provides:

“Further to (a), the Judicial Decision was arrived at by FRAUD, warranting Setting Aside the decision, pursuant to UCPR Rule 667, sub-paragraph (667)(2) and UCPR rule 667, sub-sub-paragraph (667)(2)(b);”

Subparagraph (g) of the notice of appeal provides:

“There has also been a breach of Section 120 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) entitled Judicial Corruption that warrants setting aside the Decision;”

Subparagraph (j) of the notice of appeal provides:

“The repetitive Errors of Law in Grounds 2(f), 2(h) and 2(i) above by the Court, constitute Vexatious conduct at Law pursuant to the principles in Cameron [1996] 2 Qd R 218 at 220, by Fitzgerald P which warrants setting aside the decision;”

Subparagraph (k) states:

“False UCPR Chapter 6 allegations to strike out the Claim, warrant setting aside the Decision and adding back struck out valid SoC paragraphs;”

In the course of argument, Mr Young directed my attention to subparagraph (e) on page 2 of the document and contended that this ground alleged a failure on the part of the Judge to accord procedural fairness, in that the appellant had been denied the opportunity to be heard on the application to strike out his pleading. Subparagraph (e) provides:

“Further to (c) and (d), His Honour breached High Court of Australia Common Law by only hearing the Defendant and not the Plaintiff’s case. The Plaintiff’s case was to be presented through four Applications and four Affidavits that were explained in Application # 5, to be heard by His Honour on 02 February 2018. His Honour refused to allow the Plaintiff to present his case, and only focused on dismissing the Claim for the Defendant. That will be explained in considerable detail in the plaintiff’s Outline before the Court of Appeal. As at the date of this Notice of Appeal, the Courts on-line file summary under the heading “Events” shows the first hearing dated 09 February 2018 to hear the vital first part of the Plaintiff’s case, as being “dismissed” by the Primary Judge. As evident in the BS12210/17 Court Registry file summary printed on 02 March 2018, the hearings set down for 23 March 2018 have now been quietly “delisted” (refer page xxxx of the Appeal Record Book).”

The appellant filed an outline of argument in support of his appeal. Its content is similar in character to that of the outline of…

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 55
Decision Date: 28 MARCH 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Queensland heard an appeal by Gregory Raymond Young against a decision made by Martin J to strike out his statement of claim. The respondent to the appeal is the Crime and Corruption Commission. The appeal was filed on 7 March 2018 and included 15 grounds for appeal. The appellant alleged that the decision was made through fraud and in breach of the law, and that there was a failure to accord procedural fairness. The Court had to decide if the grounds of appeal articulated in the notice of appeal complied with the requirements of Rule 747(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), which requires the grounds of appeal to be briefly and specifically stated.

The Court found that the notice of appeal did not comply with Rule 747(1)(b) as it was entirely irrational and incomprehensible. The Court also noted that the outline of argument filed in support of the appeal did not comply with the rules for the same reason. The Court considered the possibility of dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution or for other cause specified in the Act or a rule of court, under section 44 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991. However, the Court decided not to dismiss the appeal at that stage but advised the appellant that leave would not be given to file an amended notice of appeal unless the proposed draft made more sense than the current one.

The Court struck out the notice of appeal and ordered that the costs of the proceedings be the parties’ costs in the appeal. The Court advised the appellant that if he wished to file an amended notice of appeal, he would need to apply for leave to do so, and the application would be decided based on the content of the proposed amended notice of appeal.

Orders