Barro Group Pty Ltd v Girgenti

[2001] QCA 100

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA
MOYNIHAN J
BYRNE J

Appeal No 11317 of 2000

BARRO GROUP PTY LTD Applicant

and

GIUSEPPE ROSARIO GIRGENTI Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 16/03/2001

ORDER

WILLIAMS JA: This is an application pursuant to Section 118 of the District Court Act for leave to appeal from a decision of the Planning and Environment Court in Townsville.

The application before the Planning and Environment Court sought a declaration that in the circumstances of the case, the removal of gravel, its crushing, screening and stockpiling was contrary to the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1994. The Planning and Environment Court dismissed the application.

The activity in question on the land has now ceased. The Court admitted as Exhibit 1 a letter from the solicitors for the respondent indicating that in the circumstances they did not propose to appear on the hearing of the application; it is clear, and conceded by counsel for the applicant, that the activity in question has ceased.

The principal point that the applicant would seek to agitate if leave to appeal was granted was that the Planning and Environment Court did not properly apply the decision of this Court in Boral Resources Queensland Pty Ltd v. Cairns City Council (1997) 2 Queensland Reports 31. The appeal would accept the correctness of that decision.

In my view, particularly since the activity in question has ceased, that question would be a moot point and not one appropriate for the granting of leave. Cases such as these all depend upon their own particular facts and the material does not establish that there is anything so specific or peculiar about the facts before the Planning and Environment Court in this case to warrant this Court concluding that any decision would be in the nature of a test case.

In all the circumstances, I would refuse leave to appeal.

MOYNIHAN J: I agree.

BYRNE J: I agree.

WILLIAMS JA: The order of the Court is leave to appeal refused.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Barro Group Pty Ltd v Girgenti involved an application by Barro Group Pty Ltd, seeking leave to appeal a decision made by the Planning and Environment Court in Townsville. The Planning and Environment Court had dismissed an application by Barro Group for a declaration that the removal, crushing, screening, and stockpiling of gravel on land was contrary to the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1994. The activity in question had since ceased, and the respondent, Giuseppe Rosario Girgenti, had indicated through his solicitors that he would not be contesting the application.

The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Planning and Environment Court had properly applied the decision from the earlier case of Boral Resources Queensland Pty Ltd v. Cairns City Council. The applicant argued that the lower court had failed to correctly apply this precedent. The Court of Appeal needed to determine if the lower court's decision warranted an appeal and, if so, whether the matter had sufficient importance or peculiarity to be considered a test case.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal found that the matter was effectively moot since the activities in question had already ceased. The Court further concluded that the issue raised would not lead to a decision of general significance or serve as a test case. Consequently, the Court refused the application for leave to appeal, finding no basis for the appeal to proceed given the cessation of the activity and the lack of a broader public interest or unique factual context that would warrant a departure from the lower court's decision. The unanimous decision of the Court was to deny leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established