Deeley v Hicks [2001] QLRT 46

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: In Re Ronald Leslie Deeley and Russell Brendon Hicks and Cameron Jeffrey Hicks [2001] QLRT 46 PARTIES: Ronald Leslie Deeley Applicant - and - Russell Brendon Hicks and Cameron Jeffrey Hicks Respondents FILE NO: LXX40004/2000 PROCEEDING: Interlocutory issue – practice and procedure DELIVERED ON: 5 July 2001 DELIVERED AT: Emerald PRESIDING MEMBER: Smith DP ORDER/S: 1. No finding of contempt against Mr Deeley. (at [10] and [14]) 2. Issue of costs reserved for final determination. (at [19]) CATCHWORDS: CONTEMPT OF TRIBUNAL – INTERESTS OF JUSTICE – ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH – COSTS Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999 ss 49 and 62 COUNSEL: Mr A C Barlow for the Applicant SOLICITORS: Mr G Houen, agent for the Respondents [1] SMITH DP: (Ex Tempore) I consider it appropriate in this matter to give some formal reasons for the course that I am about to adopt. -- 1 of 6 -- [2] I have heard today a continued hearing of this matter which has had in many respects a rather tortured history. The tortured history, as I have put it, arises for a multiplicity of reasons but I can compress those down to three key issues. Firstly, this is a new Tribunal. It is still finding its way both from its own perspective and from the perspectives of those who appear before it and it is understandable that in early matters, as this matter was, there would be degrees of lack of knowledge of the procedures to be adopted before the Tribunal on behalf of all parties. That is accepted. [3] The other two main causes for delays and for the number of hearings come about, in my view, from the actions of both the applicant for the mining lease and the representative of the respondent in these matters both in the seeking of reports in interlocutory procedures and in other matters that have occurred throughout the history of the matter. [4] There is, of course, the additional feature of the letter received from Mr and Mrs Benney.1 This was particularly relevant due to the application by Mr Deeley heard on 5 June 2001 to reopen this matter.2 1 See [2001] QLRT 37. 2 See [2001] QLRT 33. [5] In all instances it is necessary for a court or tribunal to ensure that the interests of justice are met. That is a paramount concern. It was because of the paramountcy of that issue and Mr Deeley's insistence that he had fresh evidence that he wished to place before the Tribunal that the orders of 5 June 2001 were made. In addition, of course, was the issue of coming into existence of the Benney letter which has been explained in uncontested material put in by Mr Houen on behalf of his clients. [6] It is a matter of grave concern to the Tribunal, taking into account the totality of this matter and the numerous appearances that have occurred before the Tribunal and the conduct of Mr Deeley at a number of those hearings, that the orders of 18 June 2001 have not been complied with by Mr Deeley. -- 2 of 6 -- [7] There are onerous provisions contained within the Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999 (hereinafter “the LRT Act”) that deal with issues of contempt of the Tribunal. It seems clear on the face of it that Mr Deeley has contravened at least s 62(1)(f) of the LRT Act which is in the following terms: "62(1) A person is in contempt of the Tribunal if a person … (f) without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order or direction of the Tribunal made or given at a Tribunal hearing." [8] Mr Deeley in this regard is hoisted on his own petard. He has stated his need for additional evidence. He has petitioned this Tribunal for the right to provide additional evidence, and once that right has been given and orders made specifically in that regard, he has not continued through in compliance with those orders. This is a serious matter and must be viewed seriously by all parties. [9] However, the issue of contempt does not start and end with s 62. It is a discretionary matter that rests on my shoulders and indeed on the shoulders of the President and the Supreme Court if s 63 is involved. [10] I do not consider in this matter that the interests of justice would be served by finding Mr Deeley in contempt of the Tribunal. I believe that the apology that Mr Deeley has offered to the Tribunal through his counsel today shows sufficient understanding of the seriousness of the matter and Mr Deeley's engaging of counsel to represent him today indicate to me a greater understanding of the nature of these proceedings and the serious position that Mr Deeley finds himself in in appearing before the Tribunal today. [11] I also take into account the new nature of the legislation and procedures adopted by the Tribunal, and I believe that it would be harsh punishment indeed for a person in Mr Deeley's position to be punished for contempt, which can be quite a serious punishment as I'm sure Mr Barlow has advised Mr Deeley. -- 3 of 6 -- [12] I also do not wish this matter to be taken further than where it is at this stage, but it does serve as a reminder to all parties of the serious nature of any proceedings before the Tribunal. While the Tribunal must endeavour to operate with as little formality and technicality as informally as possible,3 that section of the Act is limited by the requirement to ensure that justice is done for all parties. That includes justice for the people of the State of Queensland and it also specifically includes justice for other parties to the litigation. [13] This matter has been, as I have mentioned, further complicated by the issue of the Benney letter. It is true to say that, but for the issue of the Benney letter, Mr Deeley would not find himself before the Tribunal today and the issue of contempt would not otherwise arise and, indeed, had matters gone differently and evidence been brought before me different to the evidence that has been filed by the Respondents, the shoe may have been on the other foot regarding issues of contempt. However, as I have said, I am satisfied with the evidence provided by Mr Houen and his clients and I make no findings regarding contempt issues in that regard. I merely raise that as an issue to show the importance that all parties must place upon appearing before the Tribunal. [14] As I have indicated I will not make any finding of contempt against Mr Deeley. I also wish to place on record my appreciation to both Mr Houen and Mr Barlow for the assistance they have provided to me in this matter. Such assistance should, I think, be taken on board by Mr Deeley and other parties, both miners and graziers, in this area of the State. [15] There are complex issues that arise in these matters but sometimes, despite the best efforts of parties without legal training, such issues may require assistance from either an experienced agent or indeed an experienced counsel, as in Mr Barlow's case. What has occurred in this matter in the last couple of weeks, in my view, emphasises the need at times for parties to take a step back and reflect upon the position that they are in and ensure that they are at all times complying with legislation and the orders of the Tribunal. 3 See s 49 LRT Act. -- 4 of 6 -- [16] I also consider it appropriate at this stage to request of the President of the Tribunal a review of Tribunal operations by way of explaining to the community in general, but this community in particular as it is the source of a significant amount of work for the Tribunal, the role of case officers and the role of mediation in matters that come before it. I would ask at the conclusion of this judgment for Mr Barlow and Mr Houen to spend a moment with me in Chambers to discuss the manner in which the issue of community education can be brought before the President for his consideration. [17] As I have pointed out in my decision in Elliott v Hicks4, there is a rich history of both the pastoral and mining industries in this region. The Tribunal, in a way, is a new kid on the block. That's in one perspective. In another perspective, the Tribunal is also but an extra step in the legal processes that have been existing here for 130 years and so, whilst new in one sense, it does come with the wealth of history, legal precedent and knowledge that has been built up over those 130 years. It desires to work with counsel, agents, pastoralists and miners to ensure that these matters are dealt with expeditiously, but with all parties having a right to appear before it and to believe that justice has been served and that their cases have been properly dealt with. The Tribunal will jealously ensure that that occurs whenever matters come before it. [18] I will have these reasons published as formal reasons of the Tribunal in this matter. Whilst I have found that there should not be any punishment for contempt, Mr Barlow, in his submissions, squarely addressed the issue of contempt at the outset. It was a matter that was raised in Chambers as late as yesterday and I think it is appropriate for this community that these reasons be published. [19] As regard the issue of costs I reserve the issue of costs for my final determination of this matter. I do not think it appropriate to take into account 4 2001 QLRT 38. -- 5 of 6 -- costs of just today's hearing in a vacuum, but I will consider the issue of costs once my final determination for compensation in this matter has been made. -- 6 of 6 --