Black v Gold Coast Pickleball Association Inc [2025] QCA 236

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Black v Gold Coast Pickleball Association Inc [2025] QCA 236 PARTIES: PHILIP JOHN BLACK (appellant) v GOLD COAST PICKLEBALL ASSOCIATION INC IA57679 (first respondent) PICKLEBALL ASSOCIATION OF QUEENSLAND INC IA56750 (second respondent) PICKLEBALL AUSTRALIA ASSOCIATION LTD ACN 638 355 825 (third respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 2498 of 2025 SC No 16137 of 2023 DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2025] QSC 106 (Copley J) DELIVERED ON: 25 November 2025 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 19 November 2025 JUDGES: Bowskill CJ and Bradley JA and Henry J ORDER: Appeal dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF OR APPLICANT – GENERALLY – where the appellant is a former member of the first respondent and a current member of the second respondent and third respondent – where the primary judge granted summary judgment to the respondents under r 292(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the appellant appeals against the whole of the order of the primary judge – whether the primary judge erred in granting summary judgment Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293 COUNSEL: The appellant appeared on his own behalf K A McGree for the respondents -- 1 of 4 -- 2 SOLICITORS: The appellant appeared on his own behalf Lander & Rogers for the respondents [1] THE COURT: The first respondent (the Gold Coast Association) and the second respondent (the Queensland Association) are incorporated associations. The third respondent (the Australian Association) is a company limited by guarantee. Each is concerned with the sport of pickleball. The appellant is a former member of the Gold Coast Association and a current member of the Queensland Association and the Australian Association. [2] On 20 May 2025, the Court ordered judgment be entered for the three respondents on the appellant’s claim. This followed a hearing before the learned primary judge, at the end of which his Honour reserved the decision for consideration. The order was made pursuant to r 293(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). So, it was an order for summary judgment for the three respondents, who were the defendants to the appellant’s claim. [3] The appellant has appealed against the whole of the order. The appellant’s claims and the primary judge’s reasons [4] The appellant sought different relief against each of the respondents and some relief against persons who were not parties to his claim. Gold Coast Association [5] Against the Gold Coast Association, the appellant sought declarations and an inquiry. [6] First, he sought a declaration that the termination of his membership of the Gold Coast Association was invalid. His Honour explained: “[17] The plaintiff has no real prospect of obtaining a declaration that termination of his membership [of the Gold Coast Association] was invalid because the [Gold Coast Association] has accepted that the decision to terminate was not validly made. There is no legal controversy between the parties. A declaration will serve no purpose. There is no party concerned to contradict this aspect of the claim. There is no need for a trial in respect of this part of the claim.” (citations omitted) [7] Next, the appellant sought a declaration that the constitution of the Gold Coast Association is null, void, invalid and ineffective. The appellant also sought an “inquiry” into the adoption of the constitution. [8] His Honour found: “[30] The affairs of the [Gold Coast Association] are governed by a constitution. The current constitution was adopted at a special general meeting of members on 23 August 2021. The resolution to adopt the constitution was passed with 116 votes for and 9 votes against. [31] The Court has no power to order an inquiry. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [32] …The plaintiff has no real prospect of obtaining a declaration that the constitution is null, void, invalid and ineffective on the basis of a tortious conspiracy. He has no real prospect of proving he suffered harm or damage as a result of any alleged conspiracy. He has no real prospect of proving that the real purpose, or predominant motive, for the adoption of a new constitution was to injure him. Also, none of these matters [is] pleaded in the statement of claim. There is no need for a trial of this part of the claim.” (citations omitted) Queensland Association [9] The appellant sought an order that the Queensland Association “admit that they had no grounds or reason to call a meeting to expel him”. He also sought an order removing “conditions” on the withdrawal of the notice of the meeting. [10] His Honour found: “[22] The Court has no power to compel the [Queensland Association] to make an admission. … [24] There is no real prospect of the plaintiff succeeding on this aspect of the claim because in view of the withdrawal of the notice about the possibility of termination [of the appellant’s membership] there is no legal controversy to resolve. Whether the [Queensland Association] had grounds to call a meeting to consider the termination of the plaintiff’s membership is now hypothetical. No conditions were imposed on the plaintiff’s continued membership of the [Queensland Association] beyond the conditions of membership all members were required to observe. There is no need for a trial…”. Australian Association [11] The appellant sought an order that the Australian Association conduct an inquiry into his complaints and evidence about some of the Australian Association’s members. By February 2025, the Australian Association had decided not to refer the appellant’s complaints for investigation. The learned primary judge found that: “[the Australian Association’s] directors have a discretion to refer for investigation or determination any allegation about a member which in their opinion is not vexatious, trifling or frivolous.”1 [12] His Honour concluded: “[28] A claim for an order, the nature of which is not identified, that the [Australian Association] conduct an inquiry has no real prospects of success because the constitution does not oblige the Directors to refer any allegation for investigation or determination. It is implicit that the Directors are to consider a complaint and decide how to proceed. That has occurred. There is no need for a trial of [this part] of the claim.” 1 Black v Gold Coast Pickleball Association Inc [2025] QSC 106 at [27]. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 Other persons [13] Finally, the appellant sought orders that persons, identified and to be identified, be required to “go through” various documents and provide “affidavits or statutory declarations” containing “admissions” about “what they did or failed to do.” The appellant also claimed for an investigation of each person’s pickleball association memberships “through an independent inquiry under oath”. [14] The primary judge found: “[34] The Court has no power to provide the relief sought … Accordingly, the plaintiff has no prospect at all of succeeding on either of these parts of the claim and there is no need for a trial of these parts of the claim.” Consideration of the appellant’s appeal [15] The Court may grant summary judgment where a party has no real prospect of succeeding – on its claim or its defence – and there is no need for a trial of the claim. Like other ways of ending proceedings early, summary judgment prevents parties wasting costs on a claim that has no prospect of succeeding and ensures the court’s resources are used properly, for claims that require a trial. The question is not whether a claim is hopeless or bound to fail. It is whether there is a real as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. If there is a real prospect of success, then the claim should go to a trial. The interests of justice usually require disputed facts and issues to be the subject of evidence and submissions at a trial. Summary judgment should not be given unless it is just to do so. It is given only in the clearest of cases. [16] The appellant’s was a clear case of a claim with no prospect of succeeding. There was no need for a trial to determine that to be so. [17] The appellant’s claim proceeds on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and role of the courts. In this country, governed by the rule of law, the courts play their part in administering civil justice by providing persons with remedies for wrongs they have suffered. Courts do so by determining disputes of fact and law independently, impartially, fairly, openly and for identified reasons. [18] The appellant cannot demand that the Court give an opinion on a matter that is not in dispute. Where there is no dispute, the Court has no role to play. The judicial function and the requirements of procedural fairness prevent the Court from forcing a person to admit or confess something to the appellant’s “approval and satisfaction … for public release.” Nor can the Court grant relief against a person who is not a party to the claim proceeding. The judicial function of the Courts is distinct from the investigative function of the executive. The Court cannot order the investigation of entities or persons because the appellant would like them to be investigated. Final disposition [19] The Court should order that: 1. Appeal dismissed with costs. -- 4 of 4 --