Davies v Smith (No 2)

In Davies v Smith (No 2), the plaintiff sought a declaration from the Supreme Court of Queensland that premises located in Brisbane were restricted under the Restricted Premises Act 1943. The defendant, Smith, opposed the application, arguing that the court should not consider the presence of reputed criminals on the premises and that the court should take into account the hardship to the defendant and his family. The dispute centred on whether the presence of reputed criminals on the premises was relevant to the court's exercise of discretion and whether hardship to the defendant was a consideration that the court should take into account.

The legal issues before the court were whether the presence of reputed criminals on the premises was relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion under the Act, and whether hardship to the defendant was a consideration that the court should take into account. The court held that the presence of reputed criminals on the premises was relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion and that the court was not required to consider the hardship to the defendant. The court found that the defendant's argument that the presence of reputed criminals on the premises was irrelevant was misplaced, as the court was entitled to take into account all matters that were germane to the exercise of its discretion. The court also found that the defendant's argument that the court should take into account the hardship to the defendant was misconceived, as the court was not required to consider the hardship to the defendant in making its decision.

The court made a declaration that the premises were restricted under the Act, and ordered that the defendant vacate the premises within a specified period. The court held that the presence of reputed criminals on the premises was a relevant consideration in exercising its discretion, and that the court was not required to consider the hardship to the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had established that there were reputed criminals living on the premises, and that the defendant had failed to establish that the presence of these individuals was not relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion. The court also found that the defendant had failed to establish that the court should take into account the hardship to the defendant in making its decision.