DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Gold Coast City Council v Lear & Anor [2016] QDC 215
PARTIES:
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL
(appellant)
v
DAVID JOHN LEAR
(first respondent)
and
JOYCE EVELYN HUMPHREYS
(second respondent)
FILE NO/S:
317 of 2015
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:
30 August 2016
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
25 July 2016 and 17 August 2016
JUDGE:
Everson DCJ
ORDER:
1. Allow the appeal;
2. Matter remitted to the magistrate for determination according to law.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – where respondents failed to comply with an Enforcement Notice – where the Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the basis that there was no case to answer - where appellant seeks an appeal against the order of the Magistrate – whether there was jurisdiction to challenge the Enforcement Notice before the Magistrate.
Conquest & Anor v Bundaberg Regional Council [2016] QCA 203
Gray v Woollahra Municipal Council [2004] NSWSC 112
Howe & Anor v Harris Unreported, District Court Maroochydore, 13 May 2005
Krulow v Glamorgan Spring Bay Council (2013) 23 Tas R 264
Building Act 1975, 248, 249, 250,
Judicial Review Act 1991
Justices Act 1886, 222
Sustainable Planning Act 2009, 594, 597
COUNSEL:
M Hinson QC with K Wylie for the appellant
D Kelly for the respondents
SOLICITORS:
McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the appellant
Frampton Legal for the respondents
Introduction
This is an appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 against the order of a magistrate sitting at Southport made on 22 October 2015 that the respondents had no case to answer in respect of the prosecution brought by the appellant against the respondents for failing to comply with an enforcement notice (“the decision”).
The relevant legislative framework
Pursuant to s 248 of the Building Act 1975 (“BA”): -
“(1) A local government may give a notice (an enforcement notice) to the owner of a building, structure or building work if the local government reasonably believes the building, structure or building work –
…
(b)is dangerous”
An enforcement notice given under this section is taken to be an enforcement notice given under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (“SPA”).[1]
[1]BA, s 248(5).
Thereafter s 249 of the BA lists the specific requirements of enforcement notices. It is in the following terms:
“(1) Without limiting specific requirements an enforcement notice may impose, an enforcement notice may require a person to do any of the following –
(a) to apply for a development permit;
(b)to do, or not to do, another act to ensure building work complies with the approval of the local government given before the commencement of this section;
(c) to repair or rectify the building or structure;
(d)to secure the building or structure (whether by a system of supports or in another way);
(e)to fence off the building or structure to protect persons;
(f)to cleanse, purify and disinfect the building or…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Gold Coast City Council v Lear 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] QDC 215
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to challenge the validity of the Enforcement Notice. The Council argued that the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to do so, and that the only issue before the court was whether the respondents had complied with the notice. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Magistrate did have jurisdiction to consider the validity of the Enforcement Notice, and that the notice was invalid because it was based on incorrect information. The court needed to determine whether the Magistrate's decision was correct in law.
The court found that the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to consider the validity of the Enforcement Notice. The court held that the only issue before the Magistrate was whether the respondents had complied with the notice, and not whether the notice was valid. The court further held that the Magistrate had erred in law by considering the validity of the notice, and that the appeal should be allowed. The matter was remitted to the Magistrate for determination according to law. The court also made it clear that any challenge to the validity of the Enforcement Notice should be made in a separate proceeding, and not as a defence to a complaint for non-compliance.
The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Magistrate for determination according to law. The court held that the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to consider the validity of the Enforcement Notice, and that the only issue before the court was whether the respondents had complied with the notice. The court also clarified that any challenge to the validity of the Enforcement Notice should be made in a separate proceeding. The case highlights the importance of following the correct legal procedures when challenging the validity of an Enforcement Notice, and the need for parties to seek separate relief if they wish to challenge the validity of the notice.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Allow the appeal;
2. Matter remitted to the magistrate for determination according to law.
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.