Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] QSC 312

PARTIES:

GREGORY PAUL DAVIS
(applicant)
v
CITY NORTH INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD
(respondent)

FILE NO:

7598 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Written submissions 12 and 14 October 2011

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

1.   There be no order as to costs

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ACCESS TO INFORMATION – RIGHT TO INFORMATION – GENERAL – where the respondent sought the making of declarations that the respondent is not a “public authority” or “an agency” for the purposes of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) – where the applicant contends such declarations are not necessary – whether there was utility in making the proposed declarations as sought

PROCEDURE –  COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION – GENERALLY – where the respondent sought an order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs – where the application involves the determination of a matter of public interest – whether there was a public interest in the judicial determination of the issue – whether the applicant should pay the respondent’s costs of the application

Right to Information Act2009 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999, r 681

Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 285, cited.
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, considered.

COUNSEL:

R M O’Gorman for the applicant
M D Hinson SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Roberts & Kane for the applicant
Clayton Utz for the respondent

1. On 30 September 2011, I decided an issue of statutory interpretation and, as a result, dismissed an application for certain declarations.[1]  I said that I would hear from the parties concerning the form of orders and whether there is utility in making different declarations, namely that:

1.The respondent is not “a public authority” for the purposes of the Right to Information Act2009;

2.The respondent is not “an agency” for the purposes of the Right to Information Act2009.

I also said that I would hear the parties in relation to the issue of costs.

[1]Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 285.

Form of orders

1. The applicant submits that no further orders need be made.  He also submits that in circumstances where the respondent did not seek the making of any declarations, that declarations are not necessary.

1. The respondent submits that the question in dispute between the parties should be resolved by the making of declarations, and that there is utility in doing so in order to “quell the dispute between the parties in a way which will be final (subject to any appeal)”. 

1. I am not persuaded that a declaration is necessary or appropriate.  The declaratory relief was not refused on discretionary grounds.  The dismissal of the application was based on a contentious point of statutory interpretation.…