Bachrach v State of Qld - [1998] HCATrans 245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B16 of 1997

B e t w e e n -
HA BACHRACH PTY LTD
Plaintiff
and
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

First Defendant

CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL
Second Defendant
KEYLIM PTY LTD

Third Defendant

GLEESON, CJ
GAUDRON J
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON WEDNESDAY, 24 JUNE 1998, AT 12.31 PM

MR P.A. KEANE, QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Queensland: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MR R.W. CAMPBELL and MR G.R. COOPER, for the first defendant in support of its demurrer to the statement of claim. (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for Queensland)

MR E.J.P.F. LENNON, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with MR R.M. DERRINGTON and MR G.F. CARNEY for the responding plaintiff. (instructed by Phillips Fox)

MR J.C. SHEAHAN, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.D. McKENNA, for the third defendant in support of this demurrer. (instructed by Minter Ellison)

MR B.M. SELWAY, QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS L.K. BYERS, for the Attorney‑General for South Australia, intervening in support of the first defendant. (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for South Australia)

MR L.S. KATZ, SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR N. HOPKINS, for the Attorney-General for Victoria, and with my learned, MR S. GAGELER, for the Attorney‑General for New South Wales, both intervening in the interests of the defendants. (instructed by the Victorian Government Solicitor and by the Crown Solicitor for New South Wales)

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Solicitor. The Court has been advised by the solicitors for the second defendant that the second defendant does not wish to take an active part in the proceedings and will abide by the decision of the Court. Yes, Mr Solicitor.

MR KEANE: May it please the Court, subject to the Court’s direction, we would propose to address the Court first. Before we do so, our learned friend has some further material that he wishes to put before the Court and it is probably convenient for that to occur.

MR LENNON: Your Honours, I ask for leave in relation to our consolidated submissions which were delivered at the Court on Monday night and to all the other parties yesterday morning. I do not understand that that leave is opposed, and the circumstances appear at the heading of the submission in which it is indicated what parts are new by way of response to intervener’s submissions.

GLEESON CJ: If that is not opposed, you have that leave.

MR KEANE: That is not opposed, your Honours. Your Honours have, in the demurrer book, we think, our written submissions in-chief and in reply. Subject to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bachrach v State of Qld and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1998] HCATrans 245
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Bachrach and others, sought judicial review of a decision made by the State of Queensland. The dispute concerned the validity of certain actions taken by the State in relation to the applicants' property interests. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the State of Queensland had acted unlawfully in its dealings with the applicants' property, and if so, what remedies were available to the applicants. Specifically, the court was required to consider the scope of the State's powers and the extent to which those powers were constrained by legal principles, including those relating to administrative law and property rights.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of relevant legislation and the application of established principles of administrative law. The judges examined the statutory framework governing the State's actions and assessed whether those actions fell within the scope of the powers conferred by the legislation. The court considered whether the State had acted reasonably, fairly, and in accordance with the rule of law. The judgment ultimately determined that the State's actions were lawful.

Orders