Des Forges v Brisbane City Council Summary

[2002] QCA 111

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

Appeal No 9759 of 2001

PETER DES FORGES Appellant
(First Respondent)

and

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL Respondent
(Second Respondent)

and

PRINCIPAL PROPERTIES PTY LTD Respondent
(ACN 072 279 675) (Applicant)

Appeal No 9760 of 2001

KANGAROO POINT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION,
KENNETH FLETCHER, PAVEL FORMAN, JURINA
FORMAN, GAEL PHILLIPS, JAMES SIMMERS,
NERIDA SIMMERS, UNA CRAIG, BARRY MARANTA,
FLORENCE DYER, DOUGLAS FORBES, VALENTINA
ARISTON, NICHOLAS LAWS, EDNA DENIELLE
DALY, SEAN DALY, RAYMOND RIDDELL, BRADLEY
HOLMES and VANESSA HOLMES Appellants
(First Respondents)

and

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL Respondent
(Second Respondent

and

PRINCIPAL PROPERTIES PTY LTD Respondent
(ACN 072 279 675) (Applicant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 22/03/2002

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: I am authorised by the other members of the Court to deliver the following reasons as to costs.

Judgment was delivered in this matter yesterday. The parties were given until 12 noon today to deliver any submissions as to costs.

The only submissions received were those of the appellant. Those submissions were served on the respondents. The appellant contends that whilst unsuccessful in the appeal it should not have to pay the costs of the second respondent because the second respondent supported its application for leave and its appeal.

Whilst counsel for the second respondent made some helpful submissions, these really did not go beyond the submissions made by the appellant. The second respondent could simply have abided the order of the Court. Whilst the second respondent was entitled to separate legal representation, the appellant should not be liable for the costs of that representation.

In the circumstances the appropriate order as to costs in each appeal is that the applicant/appellant pay the costs of the first respondent to be assessed and that there is no order as to the second respondent's costs. That is the order of the Court as to costs.
-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Des Forges v Brisbane City Council, the appellants, Peter Des Forges and the Kangaroo Point Residents Association, along with other individuals, contested the Brisbane City Council's decision to approve a development application by Principal Properties Pty Ltd. The primary dispute centered around the alleged procedural irregularities and lack of transparency in the approval process of a proposed development project in Kangaroo Point. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal in Queensland, Australia.

The legal issues before the Court involved whether the Brisbane City Council's approval process was lawful and whether the appellants had standing to challenge the decision. The appellants argued that the council did not follow proper procedures, and the development approval was therefore invalid. Additionally, the appellants sought to challenge the decision on grounds of procedural unfairness and lack of transparency.

The Court of Appeal found that while the appellants had standing to challenge the decision, the approval process followed by the Brisbane City Council was procedurally sound. The Court held that the council's decision was lawful, and the appellants' claims were dismissed. As a result, the Court ruled that the appellants were not entitled to relief and ordered them to pay the costs of the first respondent, the Brisbane City Council. However, the Court found that the appellants should not be liable for the costs of the second respondent, Principal Properties Pty Ltd, as they had supported the council's application for leave and the appeal. The Court ordered the appellants to pay the costs of the first respondent, with no order as to the costs of the second respondent.

Des Forges v Brisbane City Council

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established