Barton v Beattie and Ors

Case [2010] QCA 100

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Barton v Beattie & Ors [2010] QCA 100

PARTIES:

CHRISTOPHER JOHN BARTON
(applicant/appellant)
v
PETER DOUGLAS BEATTIE
(first respondent/first respondent)
ANNA MARIA BLIGH
(second respondent/second respondent)
ANDREW PETER FRASER
(third respondent/third respondent)
FREDERICK WARREN PITT
(fourth respondent/fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 13087 of 2009
SC No 37 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

30 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 April 2010

JUDGES:

Muir and Fraser and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal dismissed;

2.   No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DISCRETION NOT TO ENTERTAIN APPLICATION – GENERALLY – where the appellant sought an order to reinstate the Clifton Shire Council as in existence prior to the Queensland local government amalgamations – where the primary judge dismissed the appellant’s application pursuant to s 48 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) – where the appellant sought leave to appeal against the order of the primary judge pursuant to s 48(5) Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) – whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the application – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Commonwealth Constitution (Cth), s 107, s 109
Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld), s 8, s 70, s 71(2), s 78
ConstitutionAct 1867 (Qld), s 2
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 48, s 48(5), s 49
Local Government Act 1993 (Qld), s 159YC, s 159YE, s 159YG, s 159YHA, s 159ZJ(1), s 299
Local Government Act 1993 (Qld) (Repealed), s 159ZY

A-G (Qld) v Fardon [2003] QCA 416, cited
Berado & Anor v State of Queensland & Anor[2007] QSC 214, cited
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63, cited
Hoani Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board [1941] AC 308; [1941] 2 All ER 93, cited
Skyring v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd[1994] QCA 143, cited
Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1; [1996] HCA 40, cited
Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1; [1988] HCA 55, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf
M O Plunkett for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf
Crown Solicitor for the respondents

[1]      MUIR JA: I agree that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Fraser JA.

[2]      FRASER JA: Mr Barton brought an application against the current and former Queensland Premier and Local Government Ministers in which he sought an order to “re initiate the Clifton Shire Council as established prior to 15th March 2007” and other, related orders. On 6 November 2009 Douglas J made an order pursuant to s 48 of the Judicial Review…

Continue reading Barton v Beattie and Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Barton v Beattie [2010] QCA 100
Case
[2010] QCA 100
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the primary judge who had dismissed an application for judicial review by the appellant, Barton. The appellant sought to have the Clifton Shire Council reinstated to its previous status before the Queensland local government amalgamations. The primary judge dismissed the application under section 48 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). The legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge had erred in dismissing the application and if leave to appeal should be granted.

The court considered whether the primary judge had acted outside the scope of their jurisdiction or made an error of law in dismissing the application. The court noted that the appellant had not demonstrated that the primary judge had made such an error. The court further examined whether the appeal had prospects of success, which is a requirement under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). The court found that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success as the appellant had not shown that the primary judge's decision was legally flawed or based on an incorrect application of the law.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court also noted that no order should be made as to costs, as the application had not succeeded. The primary judge's decision remained undisturbed, and the Clifton Shire Council was not reinstated to its previous status.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal dismissed;

2. No order as to costs.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.