Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council - [2018] QLC 51

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council
[2018] QLC 51*

PARTIES: Roger John Geldard
(appellant)

v

Western Downs Regional Council
(respondent)

FILE NO: LGR077-18

DIVISION: General division

PROCEEDING: Application for disclosure

DELIVERED ON: 15 May 2018 [ex tempore], published 30 May 2019

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 15 May 2018

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:
1.   By 29 May 2018, the respondent must deliver to the appellant copies of the following documents:

a.   Notice of Objection against categorisation or request for recategorisation for Lots 36 on SP116140, Lot 27 on CP BWR416 and Lot 35 CP BWR 450 lodged by The Wilgas Property Pty Ltd as trustee following the purchase of these parcels of land by it in 2016;

b.   any correspondence from the Respondent (including letters and emails) to The Wilgas Property Pty Ltd as trustee or the directors of that company, minutes of meetings, internal memoranda and files notes in relation to the Notice of Objection/request for recategorisation referred to in the preceding paragraph;

c.   the Decision Notice or the formal communication sent to The Wilgas Property Pty Ltd as trustee by the Respondent in relation to the Notice of Objection/request for recategorisation containing the decision and reasons for the decision (including evidence or other material on which those findings were based).

2.   The respondent must pay the appellant’s costs of the application in any event.

CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – GENERAL MATTERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where land owner appeals against decision of local authority on the land owners objection to a rating category for the land – where the appellant sought disclosure of documents relating to the reclassification of a neighbour property – where the appellant sought disclosure of documents relating to the respondent council’s decision making process for the subject property

Local Government Regulation2012, s 93
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 211

Coal and Allied Limited v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] 203 CLR 194, applied
Marchesi v Noosa Council [2017] QLC 19, considered
Peninsula Shipping Lines Pty Ltd v Adsteam Agency Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 317, cited
Robson v REB Engineering Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 102, cited
Theo v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2011] QLC 43, cited
Turnbull v New South Wales Medical Board [1976] 2 NSWLR 281, applied
White v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QLC 51, cited

APPEARANCES: RJ Douglas QC (instructed by Thynne & Macartney Lawyers) for the appellant
JP Hastie (instructed by King & Company Solicitors) for the respondent

In 2017, Roger Geldard bought a property outside Miles from Australian Pacific LNG Pty Ltd. The property has 18 gas wells on it, but Mr Geldard uses it for cattle grazing and the production of fodder crops. The property is approximately 890 hectares in area. It is rated 4/31, which is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] QLC 51
Decision Date: 15 May 2018 [ex tempore], published 30 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council, the appellant, Geldard, contested a decision made by the respondent, the Western Downs Regional Council, regarding the rating category of certain land. This appeal centred around the appellant's objections to the rating category assigned to their property and sought disclosure of documents that could inform their case. The legal dispute was resolved in the Queensland Land Court, which was tasked with determining the scope of discovery and the obligations of the respondent in providing relevant documentation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to the disclosure of specific documents from the respondent concerning the reclassification of neighbouring properties and the decision-making process for the subject property. The court had to weigh the appellant's right to access documents relevant to their appeal against the respondent's duty to protect sensitive information and maintain the integrity of its decision-making process.

The court found that the appellant was entitled to the requested documents, as they were pertinent to the appellant's objections regarding the rating category of their property. The decision highlighted the importance of transparency and fairness in administrative processes, especially when such processes directly affect property owners. The court ruled that the respondent must provide the appellant with detailed documentation, including notices of objection, correspondence, minutes, and formal communications related to the neighbouring properties' reclassification. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to cover the appellant's costs associated with the application.

In summary, the court mandated the respondent to deliver specific documents to the appellant by a set deadline and to cover the appellant's legal costs. This ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the right to access relevant information in disputes concerning property ratings and administrative decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. By 29 May 2018, the respondent must deliver to the appellant copies of the following documents:

a. Notice of Objection against categorisation or request for recategorisation for Lots 36 on SP116140, Lot 27 on CP BWR416 and Lot 35 CP BWR 450 lodged by The Wilgas Property Pty Ltd as trustee following the purchase of these parcels of land by it in 2016;

b. any correspondence from the Respondent (including letters and emails) to The Wilgas Property Pty Ltd as trustee or the directors of that company, minutes of meetings, internal memoranda and files notes in relation to the Notice of Objection/request for recategorisation referred to in the preceding paragraph;

c. the Decision Notice or the formal communication sent to The Wilgas Property Pty Ltd as trustee by the Respondent in relation to the Notice of Objection/request for recategorisation containing the decision and reasons for the decision (including evidence or other material on which those findings were based).

2. The respondent must pay the appellant’s costs of the application in any event.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council [2018] QLC 51*
PARTIES:	Roger John Geldard (appellant)
v
Western Downs Regional Council (respondent)
FILE NO:	LGR077-18
DIVISION:	General division
PROCEEDING:	Application for disclosure
DELIVERED ON:	15 May 2018 [ex tempore], published 30 May 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	15 May 2018
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	PG Stilgoe OAM
ORDERS:	1. By 29 May 2018, the respondent must deliver to the appellant copies of the following documents: a. Notice of Objection against categorisation or request for recategorisation for Lots 36 on SP116140, Lot 27 on CP BWR416 and Lot 35 CP BWR 450 lodged by The Wilgas Property Pty Ltd as trustee following the purchase of these parcels of land by it in 2016; b. any correspondence from the Respondent (including letters and emails) to The Wilgas Property Pty Ltd as trustee or the directors of that company, minutes of meetings, internal memoranda and files notes in relation to the Notice of Objection/request for recategorisation referred to in the preceding paragraph; c. the Decision Notice or the formal communication sent to The Wilgas Property Pty Ltd as trustee by the Respondent in relation to the Notice of Objection/request for recategorisation containing the decision and reasons for the decision (including evidence or other material on which those findings were based). 2. The respondent must pay the appellant’s costs of the application in any event.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – GENERAL MATTERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where land owner appeals against decision of local authority on the land owners objection to a rating category for the land – where the appellant sought disclosure of documents relating to the reclassification of a neighbour property – where the appellant sought disclosure of documents relating to the respondent council’s decision making process for the subject property Local Government Regulation2012, s 93 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 211 Coal and Allied Limited v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] 203 CLR 194, applied Marchesi v Noosa Council [2017] QLC 19, considered Peninsula Shipping Lines Pty Ltd v Adsteam Agency Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 317, cited Robson v REB Engineering Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 102, cited Theo v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2011] QLC 43, cited Turnbull v New South Wales Medical Board [1976] 2 NSWLR 281, applied White v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QLC 51, cited
APPEARANCES:	RJ Douglas QC (instructed by Thynne & Macartney Lawyers) for the appellant JP Hastie (instructed by King & Company Solicitors) for the respondent