Doolan v. Brisbane City Council

[2009] QPEC 24

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 528 of 2009

MATTHEW DOOLAN	Appellant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/04/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Developer appeal launched on basis of a deemed refusal, on day after which Council advice of an actual refusal was received - appeal to proceed - the appellant was always agent for a client - client substituted as appellant.

HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft which incorporates directions to get the matter resolved. It will facilitate the matter being disposed of in the July sittings of the Court this year.

The unusual feature is that the appeal was lodged at what the developer or her agent thought was the appropriate time on the basis of a deemed refusal. On the following day a decision notice from the Council was received bespeaking an actual refusal. I've had occasion in the past to consider whether in those circumstances there's any defect in the appeal. The council isn't suggesting so and I was satisfied in the other matter that there was not. See Garfy Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council [2007] QPEC 128, also Tinbeck Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2008] QPEC 106, both applied in fault and South Burnett Regional Council [2009] QPEC 6 at [18]

The name of the proceeding will change as the material before the Court indicates that the named appellant has always been acting as agent for Sheree Tracey McMonigle. It's considered convenient that she replace him as the appellant.

...

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Doolan filed an appeal against the Brisbane City Council, which he had lodged on behalf of his client, Sheree Tracey McMonigle. The appeal was based on the argument that the council's decision to refuse a planning application constituted a deemed refusal. The following day, Doolan received a notice from the Council confirming the refusal. The appeal was subsequently launched, but the court deemed it appropriate for McMonigle to replace Doolan as the appellant. The Brisbane City Planning and Environment Court, presided over by Judge Robin QC, heard the matter.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal was valid despite being lodged by Doolan, who acted as an agent for McMonigle. The court had to determine if the timing of the appeal, which was based on a deemed refusal, was appropriate, and if the substitution of the appellant was justified. The court also had to consider whether there was any procedural defect in the appeal due to the change in the appellant's identity.

The court concluded that the appeal was valid and should proceed. The court referred to previous cases such as Garfy Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council [2007] QPEC 128, Tinbeck Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2008] QPEC 106, and South Burnett Regional Council [2009] QPEC 6 to support its decision that there was no procedural defect in the appeal. The court found it convenient for the client, Sheree Tracey McMonigle, to replace Doolan as the appellant. The court made an order to incorporate the initialled draft, which included directions to resolve the matter and facilitate its disposal in the July sittings of the Court.

As a result of the court's decision, the name of the proceeding changed to reflect the substitution of the appellant. The court's order aimed to ensure that the matter could be resolved and disposed of efficiently within the scheduled sittings of the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established