Beames v Leader - [1998] QCA 368

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 368
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 4089 of 1998

Brisbane

[Leader v. Beames]

BETWEEN:

LOREN R LEADER, REGISTRAR OF TITLES

(Respondent) Appellant

AND:

DOUGLAS McLEOD BEAMES

(Applicant) Respondent

McMurdo P. Thomas J.A. Shepherdson J.

Judgment delivered 13 November 1998

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS TO BE TAXED

CATCHWORDS:	CIVIL - appeal against decision of court below on judicial review setting aside decision of appellant that plan of subdivision was incapable of registration and that appellant pay sixty percent of the taxed costs of the respondent - whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant was wrong in refusing to register the plan of survey - decision of trial judge affirmed.
Donaldson v. Hemmant (1901) 11 Q.L.J. 35, 40 discussed Overland v. Lenehan (1901) 11 Q.L.J. 59 applied Judicial Review Act 1991 Land Title Act 1994, ss.3, 9, 18A, 27, 28, 30, 49, 50, 156, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189 Real Property Act 1861, s.44 Queensland Law Reform Commission “Consolidation of Real Property Acts”, Report No.40 (1991), 50
Counsel:	Mr. J.S. Douglas Q.C., with him Mr. P.J. Flanagan, for the appellant Mr. B.J. Clarke for the respondent
Solicitors:	Crown Solicitor for the appellant Stephens & Tozer for the respondent
Hearing Date:	15 September 1998

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 4089 of 1998

Brisbane

Before

McMurdo P. Thomas J.A. Shepherdson J.

[Leader v. Beames]

BETWEEN:

LOREN R LEADER, REGISTRAR OF TITLES

(Respondent) Appellant

AND:

DOUGLAS McLEOD BEAMES

(Applicant) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 13 November 1998

The above-named appellant has appealed against orders made by a learned judge of the Trial

Division of this Court whereby his Honour set aside the appellant’s decision that a plan of subdivision

No. 905522 lodged by or on behalf of the respondent was incapable of registration and that the

appellant pay sixty per cent of the taxed costs of the above-named respondent.

The learned trial judge made these orders at the conclusion of the hearing of the above-named

respondent’s application under the Judicial Review Act 1991 to review the appellant’s decision.

The respondent is the registered proprietor of freehold land described as lot 29 on RP 12574 situated at 61 Gillan Street, Norman Park. Lot 29 is one of sixty lots appearing in Plan Catalogue (as it was then described) No. 12574 prepared by Surveyor C.E. James in 1915 and registered in that

year. Plan Catalogue No. 12574 was subsequently amended to show sixty-two lots but that

amendment is not relevant to the present matter.

Lot 29 has been alienated Crown land since 28 January 1854 when 9 acres, the land of which

lot 29 forms part, became the subject of a grant of land purchased by the State of New South Wales

to the Honourable Louis Hope.

As the learned trial judge said:-
“Lot 29 has 3 boundaries. One is a surveyed line which…

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.

Continue reading Beames v Leader

Details

AGLC: Beames v Leader [1998] QCA 368
Case: [1998] QCA 368
Decision Date: 13/11/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Beames v Leader involved an appeal by the appellant against a decision of the court below that had granted judicial review to the respondent, setting aside the appellant's decision that a plan of subdivision was incapable of registration. The appellant was also ordered to pay sixty percent of the respondent's taxed costs. The crux of the dispute was whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the appellant was incorrect in refusing to register the plan of survey. The matter was heard in the court of appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the lower court's decision.

The legal issues before the court of appeal centred on the interpretation of relevant planning legislation and the standard of review applicable to the appellant's decision. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the trial judge correctly interpreted the statutory provisions regarding the registration of plans of subdivision and whether the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the court examined whether the trial judge had applied the appropriate standard of review in assessing the merits of the appellant's decision.

In its reasoning, the court of appeal found that the trial judge had correctly interpreted the statutory provisions and had applied the correct standard of review. The court held that the trial judge's findings were well-supported by the evidence presented and that there was no error in the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's decision. The court emphasised that the appellant's decision to refuse registration was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law, and that the trial judge had rightly set aside this decision. Consequently, the court of appeal affirmed the decision of the trial judge, upholding the order for the appellant to pay sixty percent of the respondent's taxed costs.

In summary, the court of appeal found no error in the trial judge's decision to set aside the appellant's refusal to register the plan of subdivision and upheld the order for costs. The court affirmed the trial judge's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the application of the appropriate standard of review. The appellant was required to pay sixty percent of the respondent's taxed costs.

Orders