CPT Manager Ltd v. Central Highlands Regional Council

[2009] QPEC 75

[2009] QPEC 75

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 2840 of 2008

CPT MANAGER LIMITED (ACN 054 494 307)

Appellant

and

CENTRAL HIGHLANDS REGIONAL COUNCIL

and

CHIEF EXECUTIVE,
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS

and

LASCORP DEVELOPMENT GROUP AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD

Respondent

Co-Respondent

Co-Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 06/08/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS:  Appeal directed to remain on callover for next sittings notwithstanding that finalisation of experts' reports would not occur until after the callover - failure of a hearing to eventuate was unlikely to deprive other litigants of hearing dates

HIS HONOUR:  This matter is on the callover to be held on the 13th of August.  It's anticipated that a five day hearing will be necessary and perhaps provision of an additional day for a site visit to Emerald. 

Exhibit 1 is a copy of the report resulting from a meeting of traffic experts which was held a day late in terms of the Court's directions on the 22nd of July 2009.  That identifies six or seven matters which the traffic experts considered required looking into.  Their report is very much a provisional one.  If and when the experts reach consensus on more matters, that may have a flow-on effect so far as the reporting of other experts is concerned, town planners in particular. 

The appeal is all about a shopping centre in Emerald which the council has approved.  The appellant is a commercial rival.  Mr Johnson, representing it, has concerns that embarrassment in the future flowing from the inability of the parties to get the appeal ready for hearing, in particular in respect of the traffic aspect, may eventuate if the matter retains its place at the callover and it is set down.  He has informed the Court that there are difficulties of his availability and his leader's if, as the other parties suggest, hearing dates late in the September sittings are being contemplated.

It's not until a week or more after the callover that the time-table propounded by the other parties for getting the expert evidence in order would be complied with and even then it may be that things have got out of order - requiring the town planners to come up with supplementary reports.

In ordinary conditions the Court would not be happy to have this appeal retain its place on the callover because the failure of the matter to be ready to be heard on the set dates would mean there was idle Court time and that other litigants lost an opportunity for a hearing.  As things presently stand, the pressure for hearing dates in the sittings is pretty well non-existent.   Day after day the judges hearing reviews are taking matters out of particular pools and assigning them to pools months ahead.

I can't speak for the judge at the callover who may well be influenced by considerations such as availability of counsel, and the other aspects of uncertainty I've referred to, but it seems to me that a suitable course is to leave the matter on the callover list.  The callover judge can see how things stand and determine whether the risk that the parties might not be ready for hearing on the dates contemplated is worth taking.

I make an order in terms of the draft which Mr Nicolaides handed up, I'll initial that.  I'll return to Mr Johnson the draft that he proposed.

‑‑‑‑‑