Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Fitzgerald v Venables[2022] QSC 78



Fitzgerald v Venables & Anor [2022] QSC 78


Grant Leslie Patrick Fitzgerald



Ruth Venables

(First Respondent)


Queensland Human Rights Commissioner

(Second Respondent)


BS 1258 of 2022


Trial Division


On the Papers


Supreme Court at Brisbane


4 May 2022




On the Papers


Martin SJA


Application adjourned to a date to be fixed


G Fitzgerald, litigant in person

R Leong for the First and Second Respondents

  1. [1]
    On 21 January 2022 the first respondent, as a delegate of the Queensland Human Rights Commissioner, made a decision not to accept a complaint made by the applicant to the Queensland Human Rights Commission under the Human Rights Act 2019.
  2. [2]
    Pursuant to an application made by Mr Fitzgerald, Applegarth J ordered that Ms Venables provide a statement of reasons for the decision which she made.  The application was otherwise adjourned “to be listed for further directions at a date to be fixed by the Registry.”
  3. [3]
    On 30 March 2022 Mr Fitzgerald filed a document which purports to be an application in which he appears to say that he is applying to the Court for orders that his application be decided without an oral hearing. 
  4. [4]
    The rules do not require an application of that kind.  Rather, a party who makes an application may propose that the application be decided without an oral hearing and that will occur unless there is an objection or the Court finds that it is inappropriate to so deal with the application. 
  5. [5]
    One of the requirements of a party who seeks to have a matter determined without an oral hearing is that a submission supporting the substantive orders sought is filed.  On 3 March 2022 Mr Fitzgerald filed a written submission which is in a number of parts.  They may be briefly described in the following way:
    1. (a)
      A chronology of matters;
    2. (b)
      A list of the material to be read;
    3. (c)
      A list of “the law” which consists of numerous sections of the Judicial Review Act, the Crime and Corruption Act, the Human Rights Act and other legislation;
    4. (d)
      The “case law” which is a list of a number of authorities but only their names and citations;
    5. (e)
      The conclusion which is as follows:

“It is submitted that all six grounds of the Applicant’s Application have been made out and that the First Respondent Ms Renables (sic) has breached Section 23(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) & (i) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) in all cases with the three decisions.”

  1. [6]
    A submission has been filed on behalf of Ms Venables and the Queensland Human Rights Commission in which those parties submit that, consistent with the principles in R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and Ors; Ex-Parte Hardiman & Ors,[1] they propose not to take an active part in these proceedings in making submissions in support of the decision.  The respondents have confined their submissions to matters relating to the powers and procedures of the Commission and references to legislation.
  2. [7]
    The written submission filed by Mr Fitzgerald is inadequate.  It consists of little more than a series of lists of items with no argument at all.  It refers to documents to be read but does not identify where they are to be found. 
  3. [8]
    This is a matter where, because of the situation of the respondents, a contradictor should be appointed to assist the Court in dealing with this matter.  It was never an appropriate matter to be dealt with without an oral hearing.  Mr Fitzgerald makes numerous claims of fraud and other breaches of the criminal law and his submissions do not assist the Court in dealing with the application. 
  4. [9]
    I will adjourn this application to a date to be fixed by the Registrar, after consultation with the parties, to be heard in the Applications list for the purposes of obtaining directions with respect to the appointment of a contradictor and the provision of further submissions.


[1] (1980) 144 CLR 13 at 35-36.


Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Fitzgerald v Venables & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Fitzgerald v Venables

  • MNC:

    [2022] QSC 78

  • Court:


  • Judge(s):

    Martin SJA

  • Date:

    04 May 2022

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.