Broadbent v State of Queensland [2026] QCA 79

[2026] QCA 79 COURT OF APPEAL MULLINS P BRADLEY JA DOYLE JA Appeal No 587 of 2026 SC No 579 of 2025 MICHAEL RUSSELL MARK BROADBENT Appellant v STATE OF QUEENSLAND Respondent BRISBANE TUESDAY, 28 APRIL 2026 JUDGMENT [1] BRADLEY JA: On 15 December 2025, the appellant filed an originating application. By it, he sought leave to proceed with a proposed claim and statement of claim and a direction to the registrar to issue those documents under r 15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). He named “State of Queensland/Queensland Medical Board” as the respondent to the application and defendant to the proposed claim. [2] On 21 January 2026, the application came before the learned primary judge. His Honour refused to give the appellant leave to file and serve the proposed claim and statement of claim, directing the registrar to refuse to issue the proposed documents, and ordering the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application for leave. [3] The appellant seeks to set aside these orders and remit his application for leave to the trial division for a rehearing. -- 1 of 5 -- 2 The proposed claim and statement of claim [4] By his proposed claim, the appellant would seek $366 million as damages for various torts. To make this claim, the appellant would rely on facts alleged in the proposed statement of claim. It is 375 pages in length. It is divided into 366 paragraphs, many of which are supplemented by sub-paragraphs and sub-sub-paragraphs. Some paragraphs have particulars. Some paragraphs, sub-paragraphs or particulars have a “note”, by way of commentary. [5] As the primary judge observed, the proposed statement of claim is excessively long. It descends into argument and conclusionary statements. It is very difficult to understand. The passages read as continuous flows of thought, with few nouns or verbs unadorned by adjectives or adverbs, and without standard punctuation that might have organised the stream into intelligible sentences. For example, how could a defendant plead to the “Allegation of Unlawful Conduct” in paragraph 12b of the proposed statement of claim? “12b. Following the incomplete and incompetent Unlawful investigations, by persons the Legislation had specifically excluded (per Part 5 of The Act) being not Trained Investigators subject to the Public Service Act but a Private Law Firm and not necessarily Qualified Lawyers or even Articled Law Clerks, essentially just “hired hands off the street” and “hired out of convenience” egregiously and knowingly likely the [sic] to pervert fatally the lawfulness and credibility never mind the truth of such and in defiance the Defendants Statutory mandate, who regardless of their Public Service Duties and , then skilfully corruptly fraudulently and forcefully with intent presented and promoted the web of lies and distortions from compliant but complicit and deeply compromised “witness” involved closely in the [redacted] death (such as other Doctors and Nurses) already “compromised” thereby relying on. but using such perverted “evidence re “her death (which was by Murder) and exculpate themselves from culpability. Eventually by means of such corruption managing to beguile a “specially selected” yet further Perverted Medical Tribunal - but which was constructed to be unwitting and inherently incompetent in selection and construction to be included in the Tribunal that the Defendants had deceptively with intent craftily procured to sustain the illusion of Natural Justice and Due Process, but being contrary to the law and specifics of The Act which had directives (which were ignored) of how to select a Lawful Tribunal to adjudicate on matters) and meanwhile the Defendant craftily and deceptively manipulated and orchestrated the entire process of the Tribunal Hearing , particularly the evidence (ensuring that only that and just that they would ensure be permitted) and how only that small part of the full evidence of ther [sic] Cause and Causes of Death ( by then the -- 2 of 5 -- 3 Unlawful Deaths of TWO PATIENTS would be projected and received, AT THE SAME SITTING in order to confuse the incompetent Tribunal deliberately selected to be inherently incapable of differentiating evidence of one matter from the other, with intent to damage the Plaintiff, and thereby Pervert the Course of Justice.” [6] Similar passages run for pages without a full stop. The proposed document is neither confined to material facts nor as brief as the nature of the case permits. [7] Notwithstanding its length and the inclusion of extraneous material, the proposed statement of claim does not include the material facts relied upon to allege the causes of action the appellant seeks to pursue. For example, the appellant pleads that the respondent “clearly conspired”. The assertion that a conspiracy is clear, is no substitute for identifying the persons alleged to be parties to the conspiracy, the relevant combination or agreement, and the acts allegedly done pursuant to it. The proposed statement of claim is replete with vague allegations. [8] It ends with the damages pleas. These do not include in any detail the circumstances in which the appellant alleges he suffered the damages he would claim. Nor does it include the basis on which the amounts he would claim as damages have been worked out or estimated. [9] In short, the proposed documents are mockeries of an originating process and a pleading. With respect, the primary judge was correct to characterise them as vexatious. The grounds of appeal [10] In his submissions to this Court, the appellant fails to engage with the defective nature of the proposed claim and statement of claim. [11] So far as the appellant does advance any grounds of appeal, they are about the appearance of the Medical Board of Australia (the MBA) before the primary judge, and the submissions made by the MBA’s counsel. [12] The MBA is a body corporate that represents the respondent.1 Its functions are those formerly undertaken by the Medical Board of Queensland (MBQ). It is apparent that the appellant was aware of the limited role of the MBA at the time the primary judge heard his originating application and made the orders the subject of this appeal. 1 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law), s 31A. -- 3 of 5 -- 4 [13] The statute creating the MBQ2 was repealed on 1 July 2010.3 The MBQ continued in existence to be responsible for the carriage of disciplinary proceedings, relevantly including those against the appellant, which had been commenced before that date.4 [14] However, from that date, the assets and liabilities of the MBQ became assets and liabilities of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (the Agency) to be kept by the Agency for the MBA.5 [15] The appellant knew that the MBQ had ceased to exist at least ten years before he filed the originating application attaching the proposed claim and statement of claim. He knew the MBQ’s assets and liabilities had become assets and liabilities of the Agency. He may be taken to have known that both the MBA and the Agency represent the respondent, because that is the effect of the National Law, as determined in Broadbent v Medical Board of Australia (2015) 241 FCR 419, to which he directed the primary judge’s attention during the hearing. [16] The appellant did not object to Counsel appearing for the MBA at the hearing and making submissions before the primary judge, while the respondent was separately represented by a solicitor. He took no point about the MBA’s participation in the hearing. When the MBA asked the primary judge to make an order that the appellant pay the MBA’s costs of the hearing, the appellant referred the primary judge to the Federal Court decision and submitted that the MBA should not have an order for its costs. After an adjournment to allow the parties to consider the appellant’s submissions, the MBA did not pursue a costs order in its favour. The primary judge ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs. [17] The submissions about the proposed documents advanced by the MBA before the primary judge were of assistance to his Honour. They were not determinative of his Honour’s conclusions, or of the order made by the Court. As noted, the defects in the appellant’s proposed documents were obvious on the face of the documents. [18] At the outset of the hearing, the primary judge identified the problems with the proposed documents, telling the appellant: 2 Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001 (Qld), s 9. 3 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Act 2010 (Qld), s 123. 4 National Law, s 289 and Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 (Qld), s 405N(3)(a). 5 National Law, s 295(1)(a). -- 4 of 5 -- 5 “I’ve read parts of your pleading, and it plainly doesn’t comply with the rules. There’s no even possible argument about that … It’s not as brief as the nature of the case permits, it doesn’t state only material facts, and it descends into arguments and submissions and pejorative statements. … I don’t think you understand what a pleading is. A pleading is just a statement of material facts, and it needs to be as brief as possible. It’s not your final submission, it’s not your evidence, it’s just a brief statement of the material facts that you say are relevant to the cause of action you want to agitate. The document that is on the court file, which is, as I understand it, in the correspondence section, is a 370- odd-page document, which is not in the nature of a pleading. That’s fundamentally obvious. So I’m not going to give you leave to file that document because it’s patently not compliant with the rules … because of its volume and its descent beyond … material facts, it’s going to cause great vexation and harm and prejudice to those other parties represented at the bar table, and waste the time of this court.” [19] The appellant told the primary judge that he understood what his Honour had said about the proposed documents. [20] The primary judge then asked the appellant if he wished to say anything in addition to his written submissions. The appellant said he did not. Final determination [21] In the circumstances, the appeal today serves no purpose. There is no error. The course the primary judge adopted was undoubtedly correct. [22] I would order: Appeal dismissed with costs. [23] MULLINS P: I agree. [24] DOYLE JA: I agree. [25] MULLINS P: The order of the Court is: Appeal dismissed with costs. -- 5 of 5 --