Bone v Mothershaw

Case [2001] QDC 255


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Bone v Mothershaw [2001] QDC 255
PARTIES:

ROBERT NEVILLE BONE  Appellant
v
JOHN WILLIAM MOTHERSHAW  Respondent

FILE NO/S: D 130 of 2001
DIVISION: Appellate Division
PROCEEDING: Appeal under s. 222 of the Justice Act
ORIGINATING COURT: Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON: 26 September 2001
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 17 September 2001
JUDGE: Judge Robin QC
ORDER: Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:

Appeal to District Court from Magistrate’s Court – Justices Act 1886 s.222 – Appellant convicted of continuing offence of failure to comply with a notice to submit a rehabilitation proposal – notice issued in consequence of destruction of vegetation protected by an order under Chapter 22 of the Ordinances (local laws) of the City of Brisbane – Arguments that Ch 22 was invalid as (1) not authorized by s.36 of the City of Brisbane Act 1924, (2) repugnant to or inconsistent with State law (in particular the Land Titles Act 1994), (3) expropriatory, or (4) exceeding “accepted notions of local government” rejected – original vegetation protection order referring to ‘all vegetation’ held to come within reference to ‘vegetation of any nature’ –vegetation protection order and subsequent “rehabilitation notice” not invalid for uncertainty – appeal dismissed.

City of Brisbane Act 1924 –1989 s.36
Justices Act 1886 s.222
Local Government Act 1936-1987 s.30

Local Government Act 1993 s.20, s.25, s.31

Land Titles Act 1994

Sellars v Coleman (2000) QCA 465
Re Gold Coast City Council By-Laws (1994) 1 Qd R 130
Re Gold Coast City (Touting and Distribution of Printed Matter) Law 1994 BC 950 5693
Local Government Act 1936
Kwik Snax Mobile Industrial & General Caterers Pty Ltd v Logan City Council (1994) 1 Qd R 291
Paradise Projects Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council (1994) 1 Qd R 314
Vynotas Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (2001) QPELR 14
Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1
Boral Resources Pty Ltd v Johnstone Shire Council (1990) 2 Qd R 18
Wenn v Attorney-General (Victoria) (1948) 77 CLR 84
Commonwealth v New South Wales (1923) 33 CLR 1
Fejo v Northern Territory of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 96
Re Northbuild Construction Pty Ltd (2000) 2 Qd R 600

COUNSEL: Mr J Greenwood QC and Mr R Maguire for the appellant
Mr M Hinson SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Gueuf Scassola & Associates for the appellant
Brisbane City Legal Practice for the respondent
  1. This is an appeal by Mr Bone under s.222 of the Justices Act 1886 against his conviction by a magistrate on 6 December 2000 of an offence under ss.23 and 35 of “Chapter 22 – Vegetation Protection” which was added at the end of Ordinance 1 to Chapter 1 of the ordinances published in the Gazette on 1 January 1972: see Queensland Government Gazette No. 86 page 1576 (30 November 1991) - to become part of the Local Laws of the Brisbane City Council. Specifically, the offence was one of failure to comply with the requirements…

Continue reading Bone v Mothershaw

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bone v Mothershaw [2001] QDC 255
Case
[2001] QDC 255
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bone v Mothershaw, the appellant sought to overturn a conviction by the District Court, which was an appeal from a ruling by the Magistrate’s Court. The appellant was found guilty of not complying with a rehabilitation proposal notice, issued as a result of the destruction of protected vegetation under Chapter 22 of the Ordinances of the City of Brisbane. The appellant contested the validity of Chapter 22, claiming it was not authorised by section 36 of the City of Brisbane Act 1924, was inconsistent with state law, was expropriatory, or exceeded accepted notions of local government.

The court considered and dismissed each of these arguments. Firstly, the court found that Chapter 22 was indeed authorised by section 36. The court held that the reference to 'all vegetation' in the vegetation protection order was encompassed by the broader term 'vegetation of any nature'. Secondly, the court found that Chapter 22 was not repugnant to or inconsistent with the State law, particularly the Land Titles Act 1994. Thirdly, the court found that Chapter 22 did not constitute an expropriation of property, as it was a regulatory measure rather than a confiscation. Lastly, the court found that Chapter 22 did not exceed accepted notions of local government, as it was a reasonable measure to protect the city’s vegetation.

The court concluded that the vegetation protection order and the subsequent rehabilitation notice were not invalid due to any uncertainty. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with 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.