Young v Martin - [2020] QCA 266

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Young & Anor v Martin [2020] QCA 266

PARTIES:

SERGEANT MYEE ARANDALE
(first respondent/not a party to the application)
DR JEANNETTE YOUNG
(second respondent/first applicant)
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(third respondent/second applicant)
v
ARJAY RASE MARTIN
(appellant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10191 of 2020
DC No 195 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Miscellaneous Application – Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – Unreported, 21 August 2020 (Muir DCJ)

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE:

2 December 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 December 2020

JUDGE:

Morrison JA

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to rule 69 of the UCPR, the second and third respondents be removed from the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.

2. The respondent to this application pay the applicants’ costs on the standard basis.

3. Direct that the registry not take action on the three requests for subpoenas until further order.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION – PROPER OR NECESSARY PARTY AND STANDING – where the applicants apply to be removed from those proceedings pursuant to rule 69 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the applicants were not parties to the proceedings before the Magistrate – where the original notice of appeal did not include them as parties – where they became parties upon the filing of an amended notice of appeal in the District Court – where an application to strike out the appeal came before Muir DCJ – where the application was on the basis that there was no jurisdiction in the District Court to hear an appeal under the Peaceful Assembly Act – where her Honour held there was no jurisdiction to hear the appeal – whether the applicants should be removed from the proceedings

Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 (Qld), s 92
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 69

Oaky Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Brodsky [2018] 2 Qd R 149; [2017] QSC 188, cited
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589; [1981] HCA 45, considered

COUNSEL:

S D Munasinghe for the first and second applicants
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the first and second applicants
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

MORRISON JA: The applicants (the second and third respondents to the application for leave to appeal and the appeal) apply to be removed from those proceedings pursuant to rule 69 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The proceedings concern, in sequence, the following decisions. The first was by Magistrate McKenzie on 29 May 2020. His Honour held that Mr Martin’s notice of intention to hold a public assembly was non-compliant with the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 (Qld), particularly section 92(h), and, on that basis, prohibited a public assembly sought to be held by him.
Mr Martin lodged an appeal from the decision of Magistrate McKenzie. The applicants were not parties to the proceedings before 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 Martin 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 266
Decision Date: 2 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Young v Martin involved a legal dispute in the Queensland District Court. The applicants sought to be removed from the proceedings initiated by an amended notice of appeal in the District Court, which included them as parties. The original notice of appeal did not list the applicants as parties, and they had not participated in the proceedings before the Magistrate. The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants were proper or necessary parties and if they had standing in the appeal process, as well as the jurisdiction of the District Court to hear the appeal.

The court, presided over by Muir DCJ, found that there was no jurisdiction for the District Court to hear an appeal under the Peaceful Assembly Act. Consequently, the court held that the applicants should be removed from the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself, as they were not necessary parties. The court ordered that the second and third respondents be removed from the proceedings, and the respondent to the application was directed to pay the applicants' costs on a standard basis. Additionally, the registry was instructed not to take action on the requests for subpoenas until further order.

The final orders of the court included removing the second and third respondents from the application for leave to appeal and the appeal, directing the respondent to pay the applicants' costs, and instructing the registry not to act on the subpoena requests until further notice. This decision underscored the importance of proper party inclusion and jurisdictional considerations in civil proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to rule 69 of the UCPR, the second and third respondents be removed from the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.

2. The respondent to this application pay the applicants’ costs on the standard basis.

3. Direct that the registry not take action on the three requests for subpoenas until further order.

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 & Anor v Martin [2020] QCA 266
PARTIES:	SERGEANT MYEE ARANDALE (first respondent/not a party to the application) DR JEANNETTE YOUNG (second respondent/first applicant) STATE OF QUEENSLAND (third respondent/second applicant) v ARJAY RASE MARTIN (appellant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10191 of 2020 DC No 195 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Miscellaneous Application – Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport – Unreported, 21 August 2020 (Muir DCJ)
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE:	2 December 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 December 2020
JUDGE:	Morrison JA
ORDERS:	1. Pursuant to rule 69 of the **UCPR, the second and third respondents be removed from the application for leave to appeal and the appeal. 2. The respondent to this application pay the applicants’ costs on the standard basis. 3. Direct that the registry not take action on the three requests for subpoenas until further order.**
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION – PROPER OR NECESSARY PARTY AND STANDING – where the applicants apply to be removed from those proceedings pursuant to rule 69 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the applicants were not parties to the proceedings before the Magistrate – where the original notice of appeal did not include them as parties – where they became parties upon the filing of an amended notice of appeal in the District Court – where an application to strike out the appeal came before Muir DCJ – where the application was on the basis that there was no jurisdiction in the District Court to hear an appeal under the Peaceful Assembly Act – where her Honour held there was no jurisdiction to hear the appeal – whether the applicants should be removed from the proceedings Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 (Qld), s 92 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 69 Oaky Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Brodsky [2018] 2 Qd R 149; [2017] QSC 188, cited Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589; [1981] HCA 45, considered
COUNSEL:	S D Munasinghe for the first and second applicants The respondent appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the first and second applicants The respondent appeared on his own behalf