Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council (No. 2) - [2019] QLC 24

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council (No. 2) [2019] QLC 24

PARTIES: Roger John Geldard
(appellant)

v

Western Downs Regional Council
(respondent)

FILE NO/s: LGR077-18

DIVISION: General division

PROCEEDING: Application for disclosure

DELIVERED ON: 15 May 2018 [ex tempore]

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 petroleum, other,…

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 (No. 2) 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: [2019] QLC 24
Decision Date: 15 May 2018 [ex tempore]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council (No. 2) involves the appellant, Geldard, who is challenging a decision made by the respondent, Western Downs Regional Council, regarding the rating category of the appellant's land. The dispute centres around the appellant's objection to the rating category assigned to their property and the subsequent refusal of the council to disclose certain documents related to the reclassification of a neighbouring property. The appellant sought disclosure of documents concerning the council's decision-making process for the subject property, including notices of objection, correspondence, minutes of meetings, internal memoranda, and files notes. The matter was heard and determined in the relevant court, which was required to decide whether the council's decision to withhold certain documents was justified and whether the appellant was entitled to the disclosure sought.

The court was tasked with addressing the legal principles surrounding the discovery and inspection of documents in civil proceedings, specifically in the context of objections to land rating categories. The central legal issue was whether the documents sought by the appellant were relevant and necessary for the fair determination of the case, and if the council's decision to withhold them was justified under the applicable law. The court had to consider the scope of the appellant's right to discovery and whether the council's refusal to produce certain documents was in compliance with the procedural fairness and transparency required in such cases.

The court found that the documents sought by the appellant were indeed relevant and necessary for the fair determination of the case. The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to the disclosure of the documents listed in the orders. The decision emphasised the importance of transparency and procedural fairness in decision-making processes, particularly in cases involving objections to land rating categories. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the application, highlighting the importance of the appellant's right to access necessary documents in the pursuit of justice.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the appellant, ordering the respondent to deliver specific documents related to the reclassification of a neighbouring property and to pay the appellant's costs of the application. The court's decision underscored the importance of transparency and procedural fairness in administrative decision-making processes, reinforcing the appellant's right to access relevant documents in civil proceedings.

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 (No. 2) [2019] QLC 24
PARTIES:	Roger John Geldard (appellant)
v
Western Downs Regional Council (respondent)
FILE NO/s:	LGR077-18
DIVISION:	General division
PROCEEDING:	Application for disclosure
DELIVERED ON:	15 May 2018 [ex tempore]
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