Brancatella v. Brisbane City Council

[2009] QPEC 42

[2009] QPEC 42

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 3342 of 2008

VITO BRANCATELLA	Appellant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 29/04/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS:  Planning and Environment Court Rules r 4, r 18(3) - appellant seeks indulgence to permit his application for directions to be heard notwithstanding that by reason of a change in the Rules application 3 weeks after the appeal started the application was out of time.

HIS HONOUR:  I'll write in at paragraph 21, "pursuant to rule 4, any non-compliance with rule 18(3) be excused to permit this application for directions to be dealt with".  Order as per initialled draft.

...

HIS HONOUR:  Order as per initialled draft. 

...

HIS HONOUR:  This is an application for directions by an appellant which his Counsel, Mr Smith, informs the Court appears to require an indulgence to permit it to be heard.  The new Planning and Environment Court Rules which came into effect on the 22nd of December last year require such an application to be brought within three months after the originating process is filed. 

The appeal was commenced on the 1st of December last year and ordinarily changes to procedure apply retrospectively.  Mr Smith's approach is that the three months runs from the 1st of December 2008.  If that's right, it's likely that there are many proceedings in which there is default.  It plainly assists the Court to administer its lists if matters are brought before a Judge earlier rather than later so that their progress can be monitored in reviews on fixed dates which the parties know about. 

It's appropriate for the Court to relieve Mr Smith's client from whatever might be the consequences of non-compliance.  One wonders what those might be; they may be no more than the Court having to bring a matter languishing on its lists before a Judge for consideration as to what might happen.  It will be a considerable change in the culture of the Court if, excepting a clear case where it was the just outcome, the proceeding were summarily dismissed.

-----