Copley v Logan City Council - [2012] QPEC 43

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Copley v Logan City Council & Anor [2012] QPEC 43

PARTIES:

MARIE AGNES DOYLE, CECILIA BRIDGET DOYLE AND PETER DANIEL DOYLE
(Applicants/Co‑respondents)

AND

LOGAN CITY COUNCIL
(Respondent)

AND

GREGORY CHARLES COPLEY
(Respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

1788/11

PROCEEDING:

Application for costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 June 2012

JUDGE:

RS Jones DCJ

ORDER:

1. Gregory Charles Copley, the respondent/appellant, is to pay one-third of the applicants/co‑respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application heard by me on 3 April 2012.

2. Such costs to be agreed or failing agreement to be assessed on a standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – Section 457 Sustainable Planning Act 2009 – Section 4.1.23 Integrated Planning Act 1999 – where applicants/co‑respondents substantially (but not wholly) successful in an application to strike out appellant’s appeal – whether elements of appeal were instituted to delay or obstruct and/or were otherwise frivolous or vexatious – whether costs should be awarded on indemnity basis or standard basis –where it was determined that a number of grounds of appeal were manifestly unarguable and disclosed no reasonable cause of action, whether that constituted frivolous or vexatious proceedings for the purposes of awarding costs

Integrated Planning Act 1999 (Qld), s 4.1.23
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), s 457
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld), r 689

Colgate-Palmolive Co & Anor v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248; [1993] FCA 536, considered
Copley v Logan City Council & Anor [2012] QPEC 39, cited
Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in Liq.) & Ors v Foster’s Brewing Group Ltd & Ors and Coopers & Lybrand & Ors [2003] QSC 299, considered
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd & Ors (1988) 81 ALR 397, considered
Gold Coast City Council v Metrostar Pty Ltd [2005] QPELR 641; [2004] QPEC 29, cited
Hall & Ors v Nanango Shire Council & Ors (No. 2) [2005] QPEC 105, cited
Kalglen Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors; Stratcliff Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2009] QPELR 643; [2009] QPEC 34, cited
Millmerran Shire Council v Smith & Anor [2008] QPEC 113, cited
Mudie v Gainriver Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] 2 Qd R 271; [2002] QCA 546, considered
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11, considered

APPEARANCES:

Mr M. Connor, Solicitor, of O’Meara Solicitors for the applicants/co‑respondents

Mr J. Dillon of counsel, instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, for the respondent council

Mr G. Copley, the respondent/appellant, appeared in person

This proceeding involved an application for costs brought by the applicants/co‑respondents against the respondent/appellant, Mr G.C. Copley. For the reasons set out below, the orders of the court are:

1.Gregory Charles Copley, the respondent/appellant, is to pay one-third of the applicants/co‑respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application heard by me on 3 April 2012.

2.Such costs to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Copley v Logan City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] QPEC 43
Decision Date: 21 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Copley v Logan City Council involved Gregory Charles Copley, who was appealing a decision made by the Logan City Council. The applicants, who were also co-respondents in the matter, sought to strike out Copley's appeal, contending that it was substantially, though not entirely, frivolous and intended to delay or obstruct the proceedings. The case was heard in the Queensland Land Court, where the applicants sought an order for Copley to pay one-third of their costs associated with the application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether certain elements of Copley's appeal were instituted with the intention to delay or obstruct proceedings, or if they were otherwise frivolous or vexatious. The court also had to decide whether the costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis or a standard basis, considering that some grounds of appeal were found to be manifestly unarguable and revealed no reasonable cause of action.

In determining the matter, the court examined the nature of the appeal and the arguments presented. The court concluded that several grounds of appeal were manifestly unarguable and lacked any reasonable cause of action, thus constituting frivolous or vexatious proceedings. As a result, the court ordered that Copley should pay one-third of the applicants' costs related to the application heard on 3 April 2012. The costs were to be agreed upon by the parties, or if agreement could not be reached, assessed on a standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Gregory Charles Copley, the respondent/appellant, is to pay one-third of the applicants/co‑respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application heard by me on 3 April 2012.

2. Such costs to be agreed or failing agreement to be assessed on a standard basis.

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.

CITATION:	Copley v Logan City Council & Anor [2012] QPEC 43
PARTIES:	MARIE AGNES DOYLE, CECILIA BRIDGET DOYLE AND PETER DANIEL DOYLE (Applicants/Co‑respondents) AND LOGAN CITY COUNCIL (Respondent) AND GREGORY CHARLES COPLEY (Respondent/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	1788/11
PROCEEDING:	Application for costs
ORIGINATING COURT:	Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 June 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 June 2012
JUDGE:	RS Jones DCJ
ORDER:	1. Gregory Charles Copley, the respondent/appellant, is to pay one-third of the applicants/co‑respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application heard by me on 3 April 2012. 2. Such costs to be agreed or failing agreement to be assessed on a standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	COSTS – Section 457 Sustainable Planning Act 2009 – Section 4.1.23 Integrated Planning Act 1999 – where applicants/co‑respondents substantially (but not wholly) successful in an application to strike out appellant’s appeal – whether elements of appeal were instituted to delay or obstruct and/or were otherwise frivolous or vexatious – whether costs should be awarded on indemnity basis or standard basis –where it was determined that a number of grounds of appeal were manifestly unarguable and disclosed no reasonable cause of action, whether that constituted frivolous or vexatious proceedings for the purposes of awarding costs Integrated Planning Act 1999 (Qld), s 4.1.23 Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), s 457 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld), r 689 Colgate-Palmolive Co & Anor v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248; [1993] FCA 536, considered Copley v Logan City Council & Anor [2012] QPEC 39, cited Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in Liq.) & Ors v Foster’s Brewing Group Ltd & Ors and Coopers & Lybrand & Ors [2003] QSC 299, considered Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd & Ors (1988) 81 ALR 397, considered Gold Coast City Council v Metrostar Pty Ltd [2005] QPELR 641; [2004] QPEC 29, cited Hall & Ors v Nanango Shire Council & Ors (No. 2) [2005] QPEC 105, cited Kalglen Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors; Stratcliff Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2009] QPELR 643; [2009] QPEC 34, cited Millmerran Shire Council v Smith & Anor [2008] QPEC 113, cited Mudie v Gainriver Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] 2 Qd R 271; [2002] QCA 546, considered Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11, considered
APPEARANCES:	Mr M. Connor, Solicitor, of O’Meara Solicitors for the applicants/co‑respondents Mr J. Dillon of counsel, instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, for the respondent council Mr G. Copley, the respondent/appellant, appeared in person