Anna Manolis v Townsville City Council

[2023] QPEC 10

QUEENSLAND COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

__________________________________________________________
© The State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General).  Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968(Cth), all other rights are reserved.  You must not copy, modify or distribute this material without the written authority of the Director, Recording and Transcription Services, Queensland Courts.

[2023] QPEC 10

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE RACKEMANN

P & E No 2767 of 2022

ANNA MANOLIS  Appellants

TARA GROCH

DONALD DE TARCZYNSKI

JANET BRYANS

and

TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL  Respondents

CYLINDER COVE PTY LTD

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PLANNING

BRISBANE

10.19 AM, FRIDAY, 24 MARCH 2023

DAY 1

JUDGMENT

Any rulings in this transcript may be extracted and revised by the presiding Judge.

WARNING:  The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence.  This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories.  You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

HIS HONOUR:   This is an application to extent time to allow the Chief Executive to join as a party.  The Court has discretion to extend time in circumstances where there have been sufficient grounds demonstrated.  In this case, the matters at issue in the appeal concern matters of relevance to the referral jurisdiction of the Chief Executive.  It is in the interests of justice that the Chief Executive be permitted to join, particularly in circumstances where it is not suggested that there would be any prejudice to the other parties if the extension time were granted.  It may be noted further, that orders are sought today for this proceeding to be joined with another, where the Chief Executive is already a party. 

The disappointing aspect of the application relates to the explanation for what is a very late decision by the Chief Executive to wish to join.  It appears that the Chief Executive initially decided not to elect to join, on the basis that there was not a direct challenge to the conditions which were imposed by reason of the Chief Executive’s response to the referral.  That is a very narrow and inadequate basis upon which to make a decision, upon whether the right to elect to become a party should be exercised. 

As is said in the affidavit material, and also in the outline of submissions in support of the application, it is, of course, not uncommon once an appeal is up and running for changes to proposals or changes to conditions to occur.  One would have thought that in circumstances where the matters in issue concern the subject matter of the referral agency’s jurisdiction, that the decision on whether to elect to become a party would focus upon the relevance of those issues and that the referral agency would elect to respond, in order to assist the Court with evidence as to why it says that the proposal is acceptable if the conditions it contends for are imposed.  One can only hope that the experience in this case and in others, where it has been in a position of having to seek the indulgence of the Court as a result of a late change of heart, will cause the decision-making processes to change.  Nevertheless, in this case, for the reasons I have outlined, it is appropriate to grant the relief sought. 

____________________