Cameron & Ors v Council of the Shire of Noosa

The plaintiffs, Ian Milne Dixon Cameron, Harley Rosnell Girle, Jan Marie Herron, Kay Therese Cohen, and Eleanor Armstrong Watson, sought a declaration that a Local Government Court order of 10 November 1989, which was registered as a judgment of the Supreme Court on 12 November 1993, remained in full force and effect. They also sought an order that the defendant, the Council of the Shire of Noosa, settle the rezoning deed and present it to the plaintiffs for signature. The defendant argued that the order was no longer enforceable due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the conditions set forth in the consent order, and sought an order pursuant to O. 45 r. 1 to stay the enforcement of the order. The primary issues before the court were whether the order could be enforced after a lapse of five years and whether the defendant was entitled to rely on O. 45 r. 1 of the Supreme Court Rules. The court found that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the conditions precedent to the defendant being required to enter into the rezoning deed, and that there was no obligation to enter into the rezoning deed within a reasonable time after the order was made. The court also found that the registration of the order of the Local Government Court in the Supreme Court entitled the defendant to rely on O. 45 r. 1, and that the passage of five years and the significant changes in the town planning law and procedure constituted new facts arising out after the giving of the judgment which would make it unfair or unjust to enforce the judgment in its original form. The court ordered that the plaintiffs' claim be dismissed, that the order of the Local Government Court be stayed, that the plaintiffs be restrained from enforcing the said order, and that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's taxed costs of and incidental to the action and counter-claim.