DU v Jackson (DCJ)

[2024] QCA 122

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Nature of appeal
3. › Distinction between final and interlocutory decisions
4. › Decision refusing leave to issue originating application
5. › Whether decision 'other than a final decision in a proceeding'
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 765(2)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Jurisdictional error
4. › Appeal by way of rehearing under domestic violence legislation
5. › Whether appellate judge misapprehended nature of task on appeal
6. › Whether asking if decision was 'reasonably open' rather than conducting independent review constitutes jurisdictional error
7. › Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), ss 164, 168, 169
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Originating process
3. › Registrar's referral to judge
4. › Whether originating application frivolous, vexatious or abuse of process
5. › Standard for leave to issue under r 15
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 15
1. Appeal
2. › Points not taken below
3. › New argument raised for first time on appeal
4. › Whether Court should consider new point involving question of law apparent on material before judge below

Quick Take

De Innocentis is no longer good authority on the construction of UCPR r 765(2) in Queensland; the established High Court test for final/interlocutory decisions (whether the order finally disposes of the rights of the parties in the underlying dispute) applies. District Court judges conducting appeals by way of rehearing under the DVFP Act must conduct an independent review of the evidence and form their own conclusions, not merely ask whether the decision below was 'reasonably open'.