Brisbane City Council v Lui - [2025] QDC 10

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brisbane City Council v Lui [2025] QDC 10

PARTIES:

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

(appellant)

v
LUI, Fang

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD3252/24

DIVISION:

Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Holland Park

DELIVERED ON:

19 February 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2025

JUDGES:

Smith AM DCJA

ORDER:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   I order that the respondent pay the appellant the sum of $1,000 by way of professional costs.

3.   The orders made below are otherwise confirmed.

4.   I make no order as to the costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – ORDERS AND CONVICTIONS – COSTS – AGAINST ACCUSED – where the respondent pleaded guilty to breaches of the Food Act 2006 (Qld) - whether the Magistrate erred in failing to award professional costs to the prosecution – whether there was an error in the exercise of the discretion

Food Act 2006 (Qld) 2006 ss 8, 9, 39

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss 157, 158B, 222, 225

Justices Regulation 2014 (Qld) sch 2

Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534; (1990) 50 A Crim R 287, considered

Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112; [2011] 2 Qd R 175; (2010) 200 A Crim R 115, applied

COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:

Mr D Caruana for the appellant

City Legal, Brisbane City Council for the appellant

No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

Pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld), the Brisbane City Council appeals a decision made in the Holland Park Magistrates Court on 24 October 2024 to refuse to order the respondent to pay the appellant’s professional costs in the sum of $1,000.
The respondent was fined $30,000 with no convictions recorded on 16 charges of breaching the Food Standards Code contrary to s 39(1) of the Food Act 2006 (Qld).
The issue
The appellant submits that the Magistrate to failed to exercise her discretion judicially when determining not to order that the respondent pay the appellant’s professional costs (of $1,000) pursuant to s 157 of the Justices Act 1886 or alternatively took into account irrelevant considerations and failed to take into account relevant considerations when exercising her discretion.
It is submitted that the appeal should be allowed and it be ordered pursuant to s 225(1) and s 157 of the Justices Act 1886 that the respondent pay the appellant the sum of $1,000 by way of costs referable to the prosecution.
The respondent does not oppose the appeal.
The proceedings below
The matter proceeded before the Magistrate with both parties represented. Pleas of guilty were entered.
The statement of facts was tendered as Exhibit 1. In summary, the respondent operated Sushi Kiyo at Coorparoo. A food business licence was granted to the respondent on 22 August 2019.
On 29 June 2023, Queensland Health referred a complaint to the Brisbane City Council (‘BCC’). A complainant claimed that their party had eaten at the…

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 Brisbane City Council v Lui

Details

AGLC: Brisbane City Council v Lui [2025] QDC 10
Case: [2025] QDC 10
Decision Date: 19 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Brisbane City Council brought an appeal against a decision of a Magistrate not to award costs to the prosecution in a case against Lui. Lui had pleaded guilty to breaches of the Food Act 2006 (Qld). The primary concern was whether the Magistrate erred in declining to award professional costs to the prosecution and whether there was a mistake in the exercise of discretion. The prosecution sought $1,000, which was half of the maximum penalty scale and in line with the amount mentioned in the Regulation.

The court examined the principle that a guilty plea does not automatically exclude the possibility of awarding costs to the prosecution. Such costs are not punitive but compensatory. The prosecution's request for $750, plus an additional $250, was reasonable and consistent with the prescribed amount. There was no evidence to suggest that these fees were unreasonable.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the Magistrate had erred in not awarding the requested costs. The appeal was allowed, and the court ordered Lui to pay the Brisbane City Council $1,000 in professional costs. The original orders were confirmed, and no costs were awarded for the appeal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. I order that the respondent pay the appellant the sum of $1,000 by way of professional costs.

3. The orders made below are otherwise confirmed.

4. I make no order as to the costs of the appeal.

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

The mere fact the respondent pleaded guilty could not, without more, justify denying the prosecutor of their just and reasonable costs. They were not punitive. They were compensatory in this case. Only $750 was sought by the prosecutor (one half of the scale amount) together with a $250 mention consistent with the amount mentioned in the Regulation. There was nothing to indicate the fees were unreasonable. Conclusion In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the following orders should be made:1.The appeal is allowed.2.I order the respondent pay to the appellant costs in the sum of $1,000.3.The orders made below are otherwise confirmed.4.I make no order as to the costs of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Brisbane City Council v Lui [2025] QDC 10
PARTIES:	BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL (appellant) v LUI, Fang (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD3252/24
DIVISION:	Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Holland Park
DELIVERED ON:	19 February 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 February 2025
JUDGES:	Smith AM DCJA
ORDER:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. I order that the respondent pay the appellant the sum of $1,000 by way of professional costs. 3. The orders made below are otherwise confirmed. 4. I make no order as to the costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	MAGISTRATES – ORDERS AND CONVICTIONS – COSTS – AGAINST ACCUSED – where the respondent pleaded guilty to breaches of the Food Act 2006 (Qld) - whether the Magistrate erred in failing to award professional costs to the prosecution – whether there was an error in the exercise of the discretion Food Act 2006 (Qld) 2006 ss 8, 9, 39 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss 157, 158B, 222, 225 Justices Regulation 2014 (Qld) sch 2 Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534; (1990) 50 A Crim R 287, considered Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112; [2011] 2 Qd R 175; (2010) 200 A Crim R 115, applied
COUNSEL: SOLICITORS:	Mr D Caruana for the appellant City Legal, Brisbane City Council for the appellant No appearance for the respondent