Bartlett v Brisbane City Council Summary

[2003] QCA 162

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P FRYBERG J MUIR J

Appeal No 2359 of 2003

WILLIAM A BARTLETT and

JANETTE R BARTLETT	Respondents (Applicants)
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL	Applicant (Respondent)
BRISBANE ..DATE 16/04/2003
JUDGMENT 16042003 T11/JAP22 M/T COA74/2003

MR D R GORE QC, with him MR M E RACKEMANN (instructed by

Brisbane City Legal Practice) for the applicant

RESPONDENT W A BARTLETT appeared on behalf of the respondents

THE PRESIDENT: This is an application for leave to appeal	10
from a decision of Judge Brabazon in the Planning and Environment Court.
The applicant has on the invitation of the Court agreed that
if leave is given it may be a term of the leave that the	20
applicant indemnify the respondents for their costs of, and
incidental to the appeal; such indemnity being limited to the
costs of a Brisbane solicitor and two Brisbane counsel. The
applicant makes very clear that concession is by no means a
precedent in future cases and is limited to the special	30
considerations that apply to this case.
The applicant has established that an arguable error of law
may have been made that warrants determination on appeal.
Furthermore, the case raises issues of some public importance	40
to the Brisbane City Council and perhaps other councils and to individuals in multi dwellings. It is, for these reasons, an appropriate case in which leave to appeal should be given.
I would grant the application for leave to appeal, conditional	50
on the applicant/appellant indemnifying the respondents for their costs of, and incidental to the appeal, such indemnity being limited to the costs of a Brisbane solicitor and two Brisbane counsel.

JUDGMENT

2 60

16042003 T11/JAP22 M/T COA74/2003

FRYBERG J: I agree and I would add for the sake of clarity that I would construe that condition as including the costs of obtaining the transcript of today's proceedings.

MUIR J: I agree.	10
THE PRESIDENT: That is the order of the Court. A transcript of today's proceedings should be made for the benefit of the respondents future legal representatives.
20

-----

30
40
50

JUDGMENT

3 60

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bartlett v Brisbane City Council is an appeal concerning a decision made in the Planning and Environment Court. The respondents, William A Bartlett and Janette R Bartlett, are contesting a decision made by the Brisbane City Council, the applicant in this case. The nature of the dispute involves issues of public importance relating to multi-dwelling properties, which may have broader implications for other councils and individuals in similar situations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Brisbane City Council had committed an arguable error of law that warranted an appeal. The court had to determine if the case raised significant public interest issues and if it was appropriate for the appeal to proceed, given the potential implications for other councils and multi-dwelling property owners. The court also had to consider the concession made by the applicant regarding indemnifying the respondents for their costs, which was not to be treated as a precedent for future cases.

In granting the application for leave to appeal, the court recognised that the case indeed involved an arguable error of law and raised issues of public importance. The court accepted the applicant's concession to indemnify the respondents for their costs, limited to a Brisbane solicitor and two Brisbane counsel, including the cost of obtaining the transcript of the proceedings. This decision was made on the basis of the special considerations applicable to this particular case. The court emphasised that this concession was not to be seen as a precedent for future cases.

Bartlett v Brisbane City Council

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established