Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor
[2022] QCA 239
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Pending
Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor[2022] QCA 239
Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor[2022] QCA 239
[2022] QCA 239
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO JA
BOND JA
APPLEGARTH J
Appeal No 8560 of 2022
SC No 5067 of 2020
DONALD JAMES INNES Appellant
v
THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF QUEENSLAND First Respondent
MARK BRYAN JAMIESON Second Respondent
BRISBANE
FRIDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2022
JUDGMENT
McMURDO JA: The appellant applies for the adjournment of these appeals on the basis that he is not well enough to ably present his case due to his ongoing recovery from injuries suffered in a motorcycle accident last month, and his prescribed medication for the management of pain as a result of those injuries. His application is supported by medical evidence. There is, in particular, evidence from his treating doctor in the form of two documents: one a medical certificate, another a letter from the same doctor, each dated the 6th of November and which are found at pages 33 and 38 of the affidavit of Mr J P Connolly which was filed and read this morning by counsel for the second respondent. That constitutes the most recent medical evidence, save for what Mr Innes has written in correspondence since that date, and save for what he has said this morning as to his present condition.
It must be said that the evidence is somewhat incomplete. That is, the medical evidence. And it is susceptible to more than one interpretation. However, there is no evident basis for this court not to accept what the appellant says about his present difficulties in formulating and presenting his ultimate arguments.
There are the usual but substantial consequences for the respondents in this case, which follow a postponement of the hearing and determination of an appeal. And they are consequences which must be given considerable weight. Nevertheless, it is my view that the appeal must be adjourned, and I would order that the appeal in each case be adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar, and that the costs of the adjournment be each party’s costs in the appeal.
BOND JA: I agree with the reasons of Justice McMurdo and the orders that he proposes.
APPLEGARTH J: I also agree.