Bad tempered Madge ticked-off in the Queensland District Court … Misunderstanding basic legal requirements on multiple occasions … Fundamental errors … Flawed costs order … Inappropriate behaviour from the bench … Petulant sprays … Sucking eggs … The works … Ginger Snatch reports
His line of fire was directed squarely at Magistrate Suzette Coates, who he described, among other things, as demonstrating a general attitude of “petulant bullying”.
That was the least of it. McGill found that Suzette fundamentally misunderstood the law in at least seven different ways in a case where the plaintiff, Thaer Abu-Dubat, was suing Doreen and George Lucas for the repayment of money he lent in 2008 and in 2014-2015.
It came before Madge Coates in August 2019, where she struck out a number of paragraphs in the statement of claim and gave directions for a new statement of claim to be filed. She adjourned the matter for mention on September 18, 2019 and on that day she awarded the defendants costs of $15,000 and gave further directions.
In November there was an application before McGill for a stay of those orders pending the determination of an appeal, which is where we are now.
At the August hearing both parties were represented. Counsel for the defendants foreshadowed an application for leave to amend the defence, to which Suzette immediately replied:
“You won’t be getting leave to amend the defence at this time of the day or night.”
As a result counsel could not explain the amendment he was seeking to make. McGill said:
“To reject an application for amendment of the pleadings, even on the day of trial, without either ascertaining the nature of the proposed amendment or receiving submissions from either party, is plainly in breach of the rules of natural justice.”
Further on, Suzette told counsel for the plaintiff, that the debt due and owing from 2008 was statute barred at law.
“You cannot sue on what you say is a debt due and owing in 2008 if you do not commence proceedings within a six year period. This is basic law … You’re goodbye Irene on 2008.”
Judge McGill patiently pointed out she was “quite wrong as a matter of law”, adding that there was no limitation defence pleaded by the defendants. The pleadings also indicated there was no obvious limitation defence because there had been an acknowledgement of the indebtedness.
Suzette then claimed, “This court has no capacity for equitable relief”. Wrong again. The Magistrates Courts Act says the court has jurisdiction where there is an equitable claim or demand for the recovery of money. Mounted on her high-horse the magistrate said:
“Look, I wish you wouldn’t tell me how to such my eggs, with the greatest respect, Mr Fronis [for the plaintiff]. Given the conduct of your client in this matter, I’m really mostly irritated by the whole thing. Right? Please don’t tell me how to such my eggs in the civil jurisdiction.”
“Where the hell does anyone imagine that this court has got the capacity to make exemplary damages? I mean, that’s some fantasy land surely … There can be no exemplary damages in this jurisdiction.”
Err. In a tort action exemplary damages can be awarded in the Magistrates Court, subject to the overall level of damages not exceeding the monetary limit.
The defendants applied for costs, but it wasn’t clear whether these were costs for part of the claim that had been struck out, or for an adjournment. Whatever, Suzette referred counsel to s.158 of the Justices Act, which as McGill pointed out deals with costs on dismissal of a complaint involving the summary determination of a criminal charge.
After incorrectly claiming the plaintiff’s lawyers had been “sacked” and striking out parts of the pleadings that should not have been struck out, the magistrate ordered costs of $15,154.90 to be paid to the defendants. Judge McGill said:
“The magistrate having refused to hear submissions about whether the plaintiff had sacked his lawyers was proposing to base an order for costs on that proposition …
The order for costs was fatally flawed, because it was based on a factual proposition which the plaintiff disputed and which the magistrate refused to receive submissions and evidence about.”
McGill added that this was as clear a breach of natural justice as one could find.
In response to the plaintiff asking whether he could also claim costs because the settlement had failed due to the defendants’ “cold feet”, Coates said:
“So if you think you’re up for costs, you would be dreaming, but have a go, because you obviously believe this is the have-a-go jurisdiction and I can inform you that it most certainly isn’t.”
There were other sprays from Coates that in fairness to readers should be reported:
“I can tell the parties that nobody ever, who’s foolish enough to come to court and expect that they’re going to win, never get what you want. Right. I can say that any judicial decision that’s a good decision will leave both parties with a lot of pain. That’s generally what the outcome generally is.”
Judge McGill thought this implied a prejudgment that neither party will have success at a trial of the issues. “Such a thing should not be said.”
It was another instance that illustrated “the persistent failure of the magistrate to conduct herself in a manner appropriate for a judicial officer”.
She then said that at the trial the plaintiff should give his evidence-in-chief by affidavit:
“This isn’t the free-for-all jurisdiction when you get two days to hammer out viva voce evidence in a civil matter. Whoever heard of that in the modern age?”
That too was set aside on the ground that the magistrate did not allow either party to make submissions about this proposal.
In a strange line, presumably to encourage another attempt at settlement, Coates said:
“I suppose revenge is best a dish eaten cold, isn’t it, really? And if you think that that’s going to be as the process of this court, I can tell you disappointment is going to be the main outcome for everybody.”
She did make an order disqualifying herself from the trial because she’d read an affidavit which revealed aspects of the settlement negotiations. Judge McGill said:
“That at least was a correct conclusion. It stands as the only thing the magistrate decided on either of the two days which did not involve an error of law. Indeed, so far as I have noticed, every proposition of law stated by the magistrate during the two days was wrong. Magistrates cannot be expected to have the same degree of legal expertise as High Court judges, or even as District Court judges, but it is reasonable to expect that they will know some law.”
Apart from disqualifying herself, all the orders made by Suzette Coates were set aside, even the trial listing, which already has passed.
On the questions of costs, McGill thought the only way to do justice to the parties would be to order the costs of the appeal, and the costs of the Magistrates Court proceedings be paid by Magistrate Coates, “but I cannot in law make such an order”.