Copley v Logan City Council - [2012] QPEC 39

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Copley v Logan City Council & Anor [2012] QPEC 39

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:

Hearing of an application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 May 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 April 2012

JUDGE:

RS Jones DCJ

ORDER:

1.    All of the appellant’s grounds of appeal, save for Ground 1 – “flooding” are struck out.

2.    The issues in the hearing of the substantive appeal are to be limited to only the flooding issues raised by the appellant in his amended notice of appeal.

3.    I will hear from the parties (if required) as to the costs of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO RULE 171 OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 (UCPR) – or, in the alternative, orders pursuant to r 293 of the UCPR that summary judgment be given for the co‑respondent against the appellant in respect of all or part of the appellant’s notice of appeal – tests to be applied – whether appellant’s grounds of appeal disclose no reasonable cause or are otherwise frivolous or vexatious

Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990 (Qld), s 4.4(3)
Sustainable Planning Act2009 (Qld), s 457
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1990 (Qld), rr 171, 293

Australand Holdings Ltd v Gold City Council & Anor [2007] QPELR 48; (2006) QPEC 88, approved
Daikyo (North Qld) Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council & Ors (2003) QPELR 606, cited
Elan Capital Corporation Pty Ltd & Anor v Brisbane City Council & Ors (1990) QPLR 209, cited
Hamill & Anor v Brisbane City Council (2004) QPEC 30, approved
Holts Hill Quarries Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Ors [2001] QPELR 5; [2000] QCA 268, cited
Hughes & Anor v Westpac Banking Corporation & Ors [2010] QSC 274, approved
Newmann Contractors Pty Ltd v Traspunt No. 5 Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 119, approved

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 is concerned with an application to strike out (in whole or in part) an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland or, in the alternative, that judgment be given (in whole or in part) for the co‑respondent in respect of the respondent/appellant’s notice of appeal as amended. For the reasons set out below, the orders of the court are:

1.All of the appellant’s grounds of appeal, save for Ground 1 – “Flooding” are struck out.

2.The issues in the hearing of the substantive appeal are to be limited to only the flooding issues raised by the appellant in his amended notice of appeal.

3.I will hear from the parties (if required) as 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 39
Decision Date: 30 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Copley v Logan City Council involved the appellant seeking to challenge a decision of the respondent. The dispute centred on the respondent’s handling of floodwater management and the adequacy of the appellant’s grounds of appeal. The matter was before the court on an application by the respondent to strike out the appellant’s notice of appeal under Rule 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) or, alternatively, to grant summary judgment under Rule 293 of the UCPR. The respondent argued that the appellant's grounds of appeal were either frivolous or vexatious and did not disclose any reasonable cause of action.

The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant's grounds of appeal met the criteria of being frivolous or vexatious. This involved examining whether the grounds disclosed no reasonable cause of action or were otherwise frivolous or vexatious. The court applied the relevant legal tests to assess the merits of the appellant's grounds of appeal. The respondent contended that the grounds were either baseless or did not warrant a substantive hearing, particularly those unrelated to the flooding issues.

After considering the arguments presented, the court found that all of the appellant's grounds of appeal, except for the one related to flooding, were to be struck out. The court limited the substantive appeal to only the flooding issues raised by the appellant in his amended notice of appeal. The court noted that the costs of the application would be addressed at a later stage if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. All of the appellant’s grounds of appeal, save for Ground 1 – “flooding” are struck out.

2. The issues in the hearing of the substantive appeal are to be limited to only the flooding issues raised by the appellant in his amended notice of appeal.

3. I will hear from the parties (if required) as to the costs of the application.

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 39
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:	Hearing of an application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 May 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 April 2012
JUDGE:	RS Jones DCJ
ORDER:	1. All of the appellant’s grounds of appeal, save for Ground 1 – “flooding” are struck out. 2. The issues in the hearing of the substantive appeal are to be limited to only the flooding issues raised by the appellant in his amended notice of appeal. 3. I will hear from the parties (if required) as to the costs of the application.
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO RULE 171 OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 (UCPR) – or, in the alternative, orders pursuant to r 293 of the UCPR that summary judgment be given for the co‑respondent against the appellant in respect of all or part of the appellant’s notice of appeal – tests to be applied – whether appellant’s grounds of appeal disclose no reasonable cause or are otherwise frivolous or vexatious Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990 (Qld), s 4.4(3) Sustainable Planning Act2009 (Qld), s 457 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1990 (Qld), rr 171, 293 Australand Holdings Ltd v Gold City Council & Anor [2007] QPELR 48; (2006) QPEC 88, approved Daikyo (North Qld) Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council & Ors (2003) QPELR 606, cited Elan Capital Corporation Pty Ltd & Anor v Brisbane City Council & Ors (1990) QPLR 209, cited Hamill & Anor v Brisbane City Council (2004) QPEC 30, approved Holts Hill Quarries Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Ors [2001] QPELR 5; [2000] QCA 268, cited Hughes & Anor v Westpac Banking Corporation & Ors [2010] QSC 274, approved Newmann Contractors Pty Ltd v Traspunt No. 5 Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 119, approved
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