Ahern v Brisbane City Council - [2025] QSC 220

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ahern v Brisbane City Council [2025] QSC 220

PARTIES:

James Roch Ahern

(Plaintiff)

v
Brisbane City Council

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 11225 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 August 2025

JUDGE:

Johnstone J

ORDER:

The orders of the Court are:

1. The claim in proceeding 2764 of 2003 is dismissed.

2. Order 1 is to take effect on 15 September 2023.

3. The first named plaintiff in proceeding 2764 of 2003 is to pay the costs reserved by orders 3 and 4 of the orders of Williams J made on 16 November 2022.

4. Otherwise there be no order as to costs in proceeding 2764 of 2003.

5. The plaintiff is to give further and better particulars of paragraphs 4(b), 13(c), 15 and 22 of the statement of claim limited to the matters set out in the reasons.

6. I will hear the parties as to costs of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – FRIVOLOUS OR VEXATIOUS PLEADING – where the plaintiff brought applications in 2003 and 2022 seeking materially identical relief – where the defendant seeks orders striking out the proceeding on the basis that it is vexatious and an abuse of process – whether the proceeding ought to be struck out on the basis it is vexatious or an abuse of process - whether proceedings ought be stayed pursuant to rule 367

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISIDCTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – INHEERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS – GENERALLY – exercise of power available to the court under rule 658 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (ACL) s18
Land Act 1994 (Qld) s 91
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s 180
Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 1999 (Qld) r 149, 150, 157, 171, 367, 389, 403(1), 658
Branir Pty Ltd v Wallco Pastoral Co Pty Ltd (2006) 18 NTLR 127
Butler v Simmonds Crowley & Galvin [1999] QCA 475
Callide Power Management Pty Ltd & Ors v Callide Coalfields (Sales) Pty Ltd & Ors; CS Energy Ltd v Coalfields (Sales) Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2015] QSC 295
Insurance Commission of Western Australia v Woodings (as liquidator of Bell Group Ltd (in liq) & Others (No 2) [2017] WASC 372

Kermani v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] VSCA 42

Landsdale Pty Ltd v Moore [2009] WASCA 176
Lidden v Composite Buyers Ltd (1996) 139 ALR 549

Moore v Inglis (1976) 9 ALR 509; 50 ALJR 589

Slough Estates Ltd v Slough Borough Council [1968] Ch 299

Thirteenth Corp Pty Ltd v State and Others [2006] FCA 979

COUNSEL:

Mr PW Hackett for the plaintiff
Mr MS Trim for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Walker Solicitors for the plaintiff
City Legal – Brisbane City Council for the defendant

The defendant in this proceeding (

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ahern v Brisbane City Council

Details

AGLC: Ahern v Brisbane City Council [2025] QSC 220
Case: [2025] QSC 220
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ahern v Brisbane City Council involved the plaintiff, Mr Ahern, who brought two applications, one in 2003 and another in 2022, seeking materially identical relief against the Brisbane City Council. The defendant sought orders to strike out the proceeding on the basis that it was vexatious and an abuse of process. The court had to decide whether the proceeding should be struck out on the basis that it was vexatious or an abuse of process and whether the proceedings should be stayed pursuant to rule 367.

The court found that Mr Ahern's pleadings were inadequate in several respects. He had not properly pleaded or particularised his allegation that "adequate" compensation should be calculated and paid. Additionally, his response to a request for particulars was perfunctory and inappropriate. The court held that Mr Ahern should provide further and better particulars to the defendant. The court also found that the proceeding should be dismissed due to procedural irregularities. The court decided to grant limited success to the defendant in that it would only have to deal with one proceeding. However, the court considered that this was more due to the state of the two proceedings rather than anything the defendant had done.

The court ordered the dismissal of the 2003 proceeding, with the order taking effect one week from the date of judgment. The plaintiff was to pay the costs reserved by orders 3 and 4 of the orders of Williams J made on 16 November 2022 in the 2003 proceeding. The plaintiff was also required to give further and better particulars of the allegations pleaded in certain paragraphs of the statement of claim. The defendant's costs in this proceeding were to be the costs of an incidental to this application, but the parties were granted leave to propose an alternative costs order by way of written submission.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

1. The claim in proceeding 2764 of 2003 is dismissed.

2. Order 1 is to take effect on 15 September 2023.

3. The first named plaintiff in proceeding 2764 of 2003 is to pay the costs reserved by orders 3 and 4 of the orders of Williams J made on 16 November 2022.

4. Otherwise there be no order as to costs in proceeding 2764 of 2003.

5. The plaintiff is to give further and better particulars of paragraphs 4(b), 13(c), 15 and 22 of the statement of claim limited to the matters set out in the reasons.

6. I will hear the parties as to costs of the application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I do not agree that this is self-evident from the pleading. If that is the method by which Mr Ahern alleges the “adequate” compensation should be calculated and paid, he should properly plead and particularise that allegation. Moreover, if an answer to a request for particulars is (as it seems to be in this case) that further particulars will be provided when expert evidence is served, then clearly the request is a proper request, and the perfunctory response given by Mr Ahern to the defendant’s request was inappropriate. Mr Ahern should provide these particulars to the defendant. Conclusion Having regard to my reasons the orders of the court will be, with respect to the 2003 proceeding:(a)the proceeding is dismissed;(b)the order dismissing the 2003 proceeding is to take effect one week from the date of judgment;(c)the first named applicant in the 2003 proceeding, being the plaintiff in this proceeding is to pay the costs reserved by orders 3 and 4 of the orders of Williams J made on 16 November 2022 in the 2003 proceeding;(d)otherwise, there be no order as to costs. With respect to the 2022 proceeding, the plaintiff is to give further and better particulars of the allegations pleaded in paragraphs 4(b), 13(c), 15 and 22 of the statement of claim, limited as to the matters set out in these reasons. The parties can formulate an appropriate order in these terms. Costs of this application As I have said, the orders I propose are not ones either party sought before me. Mr Ahern did offer to file a Notice of Discontinuance in the 2003 proceeding provided the costs of that proceeding were reserved to be determined with the costs of the 2022 proceeding. I have rejected that offer as a solution. In my opinion, if I had made such an order, it would have ignored the procedural irregularities undertaken by Mr Ahern. The defendant has achieved some success in that it now only has to deal with the one proceeding, but in my view that is more as a consequence of the state of the two proceedings today, as opposed to anything the defendant has done, or could have done to achieve this result in a timely fashion. The defendant has also achieved limited success in its application for the provision of further and better particulars. For these reasons I consider that it is appropriate that the costs of an incidental to this application should be the defendant’s costs in this proceeding, however I have not heard argument about the costs order I propose to make so I will grant to the parties leave to propose by way of written submission any alternative costs order they submit is appropriate. The written submission should not exceed one page and is to be sent to my associate by 4pm on 8 September 2025.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Ahern v Brisbane City Council [2025] QSC 220
PARTIES:	James Roch Ahern (Plaintiff) v Brisbane City Council (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 11225 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 August 2025
JUDGE:	Johnstone J
ORDER:	The orders of the Court are: 1. The claim in proceeding 2764 of 2003 is dismissed. 2. Order 1 is to take effect on 15 September 2023. 3. The first named plaintiff in proceeding 2764 of 2003 is to pay the costs reserved by orders 3 and 4 of the orders of Williams J made on 16 November 2022. 4. Otherwise there be no order as to costs in proceeding 2764 of 2003. 5. The plaintiff is to give further and better particulars of paragraphs 4(b), 13(c), 15 and 22 of the statement of claim limited to the matters set out in the reasons. 6. I will hear the parties as to costs of the application.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – FRIVOLOUS OR VEXATIOUS PLEADING – where the plaintiff brought applications in 2003 and 2022 seeking materially identical relief – where the defendant seeks orders striking out the proceeding on the basis that it is vexatious and an abuse of process – whether the proceeding ought to be struck out on the basis it is vexatious or an abuse of process - whether proceedings ought be stayed pursuant to rule 367 PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISIDCTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – INHEERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS – GENERALLY – exercise of power available to the court under rule 658 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (ACL) s18 Land Act 1994 (Qld) s 91 Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s 180 Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 1999 (Qld) r 149, 150, 157, 171, 367, 389, 403(1), 658 Branir Pty Ltd v Wallco Pastoral Co Pty Ltd (2006) 18 NTLR 127 Butler v Simmonds Crowley & Galvin [1999] QCA 475 Callide Power Management Pty Ltd & Ors v Callide Coalfields (Sales) Pty Ltd & Ors; CS Energy Ltd v Coalfields (Sales) Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2015] QSC 295 Insurance Commission of Western Australia v Woodings (as liquidator of Bell Group Ltd (in liq) & Others (No 2) [2017] WASC 372 Kermani v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] VSCA 42 Landsdale Pty Ltd v Moore [2009] WASCA 176 Lidden v Composite Buyers Ltd (1996) 139 ALR 549 Moore v Inglis (1976) 9 ALR 509; 50 ALJR 589 Slough Estates Ltd v Slough Borough Council [1968] Ch 299 Thirteenth Corp Pty Ltd v State and Others [2006] FCA 979
COUNSEL:	Mr PW Hackett for the plaintiff Mr MS Trim for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Walker Solicitors for the plaintiff City Legal – Brisbane City Council for the defendant