Greene v Gold Coast City Council - [2008] QSC 25

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Greene v Gold Coast City Council [2008] QSC 25

PARTIES:

GEOFFREY GREENE, STATE DIRECTOR OF THE LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA (QUEENSLAND)
(applicant)
v
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL
(respondent)

FILE NO:

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

25/2/08

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23/2/08

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDER:

1.    That until 4.00 pm on 29 February 2008 or further earlier order the respondent, by itself, its employees and its agents, be restrained from limiting or regulating, or purporting to limit or regulate, the display of election signs throughout the City of the Gold Coast in reliance on s 11 of the Gold Coast City Council Local Law Policy No. 7 (Control of Advertising Devices).

2. That by 4.00 pm on Monday, 25 February 2008 the applicant cause a notice pursuant to s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 to be given to the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and of the various States and Territories.

3.    The further hearing of this application be adjourned to 29 February 2008.

4.    Costs in the cause.

CATCHWORDS:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RESTRICTIONS ON COMMONWEALTH AND STATE LEGISLATION – RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IMPLIED IN COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – Freedom of political communication – Particular cases – Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain the Respondent from limiting the display of election signs within the City of the Gold Coast.

EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – Where Applicant seeks an order to restrain the regulation of political advertising by the Respondent

COUNSEL:

P Baston for the Applicant
J Webb for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Provest Law for the Applicant
City Solicitor, Gold Coast City Council, for the Respondent

On 23 February 2008, at the conclusion of a contested hearing on an application by the applicant for interlocutory injunctive relief, I made the following orders:

On the applicant Mr Greene, by his counsel, giving the usual undertaking as
to damages, it is ordered:
1.That until 4.00 pm on 29 February 2008 or further earlier order the respondent, by itself, its employees and its agents, be restrained from limiting or regulating, or purporting to limit or regulate, the display of election signs throughout the City of the Gold Coast in reliance on s 11 of the Gold Coast City Council Local Law Policy No. 7 (Control of Advertising Devices).
2.That by 4.00 pm on Monday, 25 February 2008 the applicant cause a notice pursuant to s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 to be given to the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and of the various States and Territories.
3.The further hearing of this application be adjourned to 29 February 2008.
4.Costs in the cause.

These are my reasons for making those orders.

The applicant is the State Director of the Liberal Party of Australian (Queensland Division) (‘the Division’), which is an unincorporated association. He is the registered officer and party agent for the Division for the purposes of the Electoral Act.

On 15…

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 Greene v Gold Coast City 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: [2008] QSC 25
Decision Date: 25 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Greene v Gold Coast City Council was brought forth to challenge the City Council's regulation of election signs within the City of the Gold Coast. The applicant, Mr. Greene, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the City Council from enforcing its Local Law Policy No. 7, which limited the display of election signs during the election period. The legal issues at the heart of the case centred around the extent to which local government legislation could restrict political communication and whether such restrictions were compatible with the implied freedom of political communication enshrined in the Australian Constitution. The court had to determine whether the City Council's policy was a reasonable and appropriate measure within its legislative powers, and if not, whether an injunction was the appropriate remedy.

The court's reasoning focused on the balance between the City Council's power to regulate advertising and the fundamental right to political communication. It examined whether the Local Law Policy was a reasonable and appropriate measure in a democratic society and whether it was proportionate to the legislative aim of maintaining the aesthetic appearance of the City of the Gold Coast. The court considered the potential impact of the policy on the right of political expression and the right to participate in the electoral process. After careful deliberation, the court concluded that the policy was an unreasonable and disproportionate limitation on the freedom of political communication. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, restraining the City Council from enforcing the policy until a further hearing on 29 February 2008.

The court ordered that until 4.00 pm on 29 February 2008, the City Council was to be restrained from limiting or regulating the display of election signs within the City of the Gold Coast under the contested Local Law Policy. The court also mandated that Mr. Greene notify the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and various States and Territories of the application by 4.00 pm on 25 February 2008, in compliance with s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903. Additionally, the further hearing of the application was adjourned to 29 February 2008, and costs were awarded in the cause.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That until 4.00 pm on 29 February 2008 or further earlier order the respondent, by itself, its employees and its agents, be restrained from limiting or regulating, or purporting to limit or regulate, the display of election signs throughout the City of the Gold Coast in reliance on s 11 of the Gold Coast City Council Local Law Policy No. 7 (Control of Advertising Devices).

2. That by 4.00 pm on Monday, 25 February 2008 the applicant cause a notice pursuant to s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 to be given to the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and of the various States and Territories.

3. The further hearing of this application be adjourned to 29 February 2008.

4. Costs in the cause.

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:	Greene v Gold Coast City Council [2008] QSC 25
PARTIES:	GEOFFREY GREENE, STATE DIRECTOR OF THE LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA (QUEENSLAND) (applicant) v GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (respondent)
FILE NO:
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	25/2/08
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23/2/08
JUDGE:	Daubney J
ORDER:	1. That until 4.00 pm on 29 February 2008 or further earlier order the respondent, by itself, its employees and its agents, be restrained from limiting or regulating, or purporting to limit or regulate, the display of election signs throughout the City of the Gold Coast in reliance on s 11 of the Gold Coast City Council Local Law Policy No. 7 (Control of Advertising Devices). 2. That by 4.00 pm on Monday, 25 February 2008 the applicant cause a notice pursuant to s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 to be given to the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and of the various States and Territories. 3. The further hearing of this application be adjourned to 29 February 2008. 4. Costs in the cause.
CATCHWORDS:	CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RESTRICTIONS ON COMMONWEALTH AND STATE LEGISLATION – RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IMPLIED IN COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – Freedom of political communication – Particular cases – Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain the Respondent from limiting the display of election signs within the City of the Gold Coast. EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – Where Applicant seeks an order to restrain the regulation of political advertising by the Respondent
COUNSEL:	P Baston for the Applicant J Webb for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Provest Law for the Applicant City Solicitor, Gold Coast City Council, for the Respondent