AHC Ltd v Gold Coast City Council

[2010] QPEC 102

[2010] QPEC 102

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
JUDGE ROBIN QC
P & E Application No 1828 of 2009

AHC LIMITED	Applicant
and
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL	Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 17/09/2010
ORDER
CATCHWORDS

Circumstances in which respondent Council receives costs thrown away by late removal of proceeding from the callover

1-1

HIS HONOUR: The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft which I am grateful to the parties for preparing. It follows a lengthy mention of the matter earlier in the day which in turn followed mentions in previous months that have involved a good deal of contention. Reasons which I gave on the last two occasions when the matter was before me can be found on the Court website; [2009] QPEC 091; [2010] QPEC 057.

It was anticipated that a hearing of the originating application would occur in the October pool. However, the applicant seeks to have it removed from next Monday's callover. It is represented by new counsel who sees things differently from his predecessor and essentially seeks that the proceeding be approached in a different way, requiring further disclosure and the like.

At an earlier stage today, I indicated a view that it would be preferable for the matter to proceed on pleadings or some equivalent. I was concerned that the applicant's approach of requiring the Council to formulate issues and the like was inappropriate.

A similar approach may have been reflected earlier in the proceeding which concerns whether the Council ought to have accepted in a way that made it the Council’s future responsibility a road which the applicant had constructed.

The applicant says that ought to have happened years ago and the court is in no position to say whether or not the applicant is correct. The Council contends that the construction of the road is inadequate to the extent that it ought not to have to take over the road now and, indeed, probably ought not to have taken it over at any time in the past. 1-2 ORDER

Various explanations for deficiencies that may exist in the road have been forthcoming. There are all sorts of inquiries that might be made.

I have had some concerns that the applicant has been seeking to place on the Council the possibly burdensome task of investigations and being first to state a position.

The order the parties have agreed upon after what occurred earlier this morning grants the applicant its wish of being spared an early hearing for which, against Council's view with which I sympathise, it would not have been able to prepare its best case.

The order protects from the Council in respect of costs that
occur in the future and, indeed, it gets its costs of today
and the last occasion when I reserved them, also costs thrown
away, should there be any, in consequence of the matter not
proceeding in next month's sittings.

Order as per initialled draft.

-----

1-3 ORDER