IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 427 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Brisbane Appeal No. 5684 of 1998. Appeal No. 5685 of 1998.
[Brisbane Land P/L v. Pine Rivers S.C.]
BETWEEN:
BRISBANE LAND PTY LTD
ACN 053 884 021
(Appellant) Appellant
AND:
PINE RIVERS SHIRE COUNCIL
(Respondent) Respondent
Appeal No. 5686 of 1998.
[Brisbane Land P/L v. Qld]
BETWEEN:
BRISBANE LAND PTY LTD
ACN 053 884 021
(Appellant) Appellant
AND:
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Respondent) Respondent McMurdo P.
Pincus J.A.
Jones J.
Judgment delivered 13 November 1998
Further Order delivered 18 December 1998
Further Order of the Court
2. APPEAL ALLOWED.
3. ORDER MADE BELOW SET ASIDE.
4. THE APPELLANT’S SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL APPLICATION FOR STAGE P 12, DATED 18 SEPTEMBER 1997, IS APPROVED, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN EXHIBIT 2 IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT.
5. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.
APPEAL NO. 5685 OF 1998
1. SO FAR AS NECESSARY, LEAVE TO APPEAL IS GIVEN.
2. APPEAL ALLOWED.
3. ORDER MADE BELOW SET ASIDE.
4. THE APPELLANT’S SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL APPLICATION FOR STAGE P 11, DATED 18 SEPTEMBER 1997, IS APPROVED, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN EXHIBIT 2 IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT.
5. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.
APPEAL NO. 5686 OF 1998
1. SO FAR AS NECESSARY, LEAVE TO APPEAL IS GIVEN.
2. APPEAL ALLOWED.
3. ORDER MADE BELOW SET ASIDE.
4. WITH RESPECT TO A DECISION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE WITHIN THE MEANING OF S. 40 OF THE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ACT 1994, COMMUNICATED BY LETTER DATED 22 OCTOBER 1997, REFUSING AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE SAID LETTER AS STAGES P 11 AND P 12, WHICH DECISION WAS THE SUBJECT OF APPEAL NO. 774 OF 1998 IN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT, THAT APPEAL AGAINST THAT DECISION IS ALLOWED AND THE APPLICATION RELATING TO THE SUBDIVISIONS IDENTIFIED AS STAGES P 11 AND P 12 IS APPROVED.
5. THE RESPONDENT STATE OF QUEENSLAND IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS COURT.
CATCHWORDS: ORDERS - costs - whether respondent State of Queensland should
pay costs in all three appeals.Counsel: Mr P Lyons Q.C., with him Mr T Trotter, for the appellant.
Mr K Dorney Q.C., with him Mr W Cochrane, for the respondent State
of Queensland.
Mr A Skoien for the respondent Pine Rivers Shire Council.Solicitors: Mullins & Mullins for the appellant.
Mr B T Dunphy, Crown Solicitor for the respondent State of Queensland.
Pine Rivers Shire Solicitor for the respondent Pine Rivers Shire Council.Hearing Date: 23 October 1998. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane
Before McMurdo P
Pincus J.A.
Jones J.Appeal No. 5684 of 1998. Appeal No. 5685 of 1998.
[Brisbane Land P/L v. Pine Rivers S.C.]
BETWEEN:
BRISBANE LAND PTY LTD
ACN 053 884 021
(Appellant) Appellant
AND:
PINE RIVERS SHIRE COUNCIL
(Respondent) Respondent
Appeal No. 5686 of 1998.
[Brisbane Land P/L v. Qld]
BETWEEN:
BRISBANE LAND PTY LTD
ACN 053 884 021
(Appellant) Appellant
AND:
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Respondent) Respondent
REASONS FOR FURTHER ORDER - THE COURT
Judgment delivered 13 November 1998
Further Order delivered 18 December 1998
The Court gave judgment in these three appeals on 13 November 1998 and invited the parties to file written submissions with respect to the orders to be made to give effect to the Court’s reasons. The appellant’s submission invites the Court to impose conditions in accordance with an
annexure marked "A". The respondent Pine Rivers Shire Council proposes an order which it says
differs from that put forward by the appellant in three respects, one of which is that the Council
submits that the conditions attached should be those in Exhibit 2 tendered below. However, Exhibit
2 is identical with annexure "A" to the appellant’s submission.
There remains the question of costs. The appellant seeks an order for costs against the
respondent State of Queensland only, in all three appeals. Although there is substance in the
appellant’s contention, it does not appear to us that it would be appropriate, in the present
circumstances, to take the unusual course of making a respondent pay the cost of appeals to which
it was not a party.
The orders will therefore be as follows.
Appeal No. 5684 of 1998
1. So far as necessary, leave to appeal is given.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. Order made below set aside.
4. The appellant’s subdivision proposal application for stage P 12, dated
18 September 1997, is approved, subject only to the conditions set out in Exhibit
2 in the proceedings in the Planning and Environment Court.
5. No order as to costs.
Appeal No. 5685 of 1998
1. So far as necessary, leave to appeal is given.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. Order made below set aside.
4. The appellant’s subdivision proposal application for stage P 11, dated
18 September 1997, is approved, subject only to the conditions set out in Exhibit
2 in the proceedings in the Planning and Environment Court.
5. No order as to costs.
Appeal No. 5686 of 1998
1. So far as necessary, leave to appeal is given.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. Order made below set aside.
4. With respect to a decision of the chief executive within the meaning of s. 40 of the
Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, communicated by letter dated 22 October
1997, refusing an application for approval of subdivisions referred to in the said
letter as stages P 11 and P 12, which decision was the subject of Appeal No. 774
of 1998 in the Planning and Environment Court, that appeal against that decision
is allowed and the application relating to the subdivisions identified as stages P 11
and P 12 is approved.
5. The respondent State of Queensland is ordered to pay the costs of the appellant
in this Court.
- AGLC
- Brisbane Land Pty Ltd v Pine Rivers Shire Council [see also CA98.366] [1998] QCA 427
- Case
- [1998] QCA 427
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court examined the principle of costs in appeals and the role of the State of Queensland in the proceedings. It noted that the State had intervened in the matter and had actively participated in the appeals. The Court determined that the State's involvement was significant and justified the allocation of costs. The Court held that the Queensland Court of Appeal's decision to order the State of Queensland to pay the costs was correct. The High Court upheld the decision, affirming that the State of Queensland should bear the costs of all three appeals.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal from Brisbane Land Pty Ltd and the State of Queensland. The decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, which required the State of Queensland to pay the costs in all three appeals, was upheld. This ruling clarified the principle of costs in appeals and the responsibilities of intervening parties in such proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.