Brisbane City Council v Cunningham

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

BCC v Cunningham & Anor; Eastern Suburbs Leagues Club
Ltd v Cunningham & Anor [2001] QCA 294

PARTIES: 

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(first respondent/appellant)
v
CHRISTOPHER CUNNINGHAM
(appellant/first respondent)
EASTERN SUBURBS LEAGUES CLUB LTD ACN 009
928 518
(second respondent/second respondent)

EASTERN SUBURBS LEAGUES CLUB LTD ACN 009
928 518
(second respondent/appellant)
v
CHRISTOPHER CUNNINGHAM
(appellant/first respondent)
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(first respondent/second respondent)

FILE NO/S: 

Appeal No 6745 of 2000 Appeal No 6784 of 2000 P&E No 2139 of 2000

DIVISION: 

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: 

Planning and Environment Appeal

ORIGINATING
COURT: 

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 

27 July 2001

DELIVERED AT: 

Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 

25 May 2001

JUDGES: 

McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER: 

1.	In appeal No 6745 of 2000 the appeal is allowed; the order of the Planning and Environment Court dated 2 August 2000 is amended by setting aside the declaration in paragraph 2 thereof and replacing it with an order that the application be dismissed.
2.	In appeal No 6784 of 2000 the appeal is allowed; the order of the Planning and Environment Court dated 2 August is amended by setting aside the declaration in paragraph 2 thereof and replacing it with an order that the application be dismissed.
3.	In each appeal the respondent, Mr Cunningham, is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal including the application for leave to appeal, and the respondent is granted an indemnity certificate in respect of each appeal.

CATCHWORDS: LOCAL GOVERNMENT – TOWN PLANNING – CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF COUNCILS (DEVELOPMENT AND USE APPLICATIONS) – APPLICATIONS – PLANNING PROPOSALS – where the club made two applications in relation to land leased from the council – where the only point of overlap was in relation to a car park area – whether the applications were part of an overall scheme – whether there should have been a single application in respect of both applications - whether the rule against ‘piecemeal’ applications according to the principle in Pioneer Concrete should have been applied - where the applications were for separate and different uses – Pioneer does not require two separate and distinct uses be combined in one application

LOCAL GOVERNMENT – TOWN PLANNING – APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – where no reason to order the respondent Mr Cunningham to pay costs of proceedings below - s 4.1.23(2)(b) Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld)

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 4.1.23(2), s 4.1.23(2)

(b)

Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council
(1980) 145 CLR 485, distinguished
Stubberfield v Redland Shire Council [1995] 1 Qd R 332,

cited

COUNSEL:  M D Hinson SC for the appellant in Appeal No 6745 of 2000
and for the second respondent in Appeal No 6784 of 2000
W Cochrane for the first respondent
R Litster for the second respondent in Appeal No 6745…