SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Hammercall Pty Ltd v Robertson & Anor; Hammercall Pty Ltd v Robertson & Ors [2011] QCA 380
PARTIES:
HAMMERCALL PTY LTD
ACN 002 663 587
(applicant)
v
THE HON STEPHEN ROBERTSON
(first respondent)
ENERGEX LIMITED
ACN 078 849 055
(second respondent)HAMMERCALL PTY LTD
ACN 002 663 587
(applicant)
v
THE HON STEPHEN ROBERTSON
(first respondent)
ENERGEX LIMITED
ACN 078 849 055
(second respondent)
THE HON PAUL LUCAS
Minister for Local Government and the Attorney-General
(third respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 2750 of 2011
Appeal No 3608 of 2011
P & E Appeal No 574 of 2011DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Miscellaneous Application – Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:
Planning and Environment Court
DELIVERED ON:
20 December 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
22 November 2011
JUDGES:
Chesterman and White JJA, and Boddice J
Judgment of the CourtORDERS:
In Appeal Nos 2750 of 2011 and 3608 of 2011:
1. The applications of 5 September and 14 November 2011 are dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the applications, to be assessed on the indemnity basis
CATCHWORDS:
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL – GENERALLY – where the applicant owns several parcels of land which it intends to develop for residential purposes – where the second respondent proposed to construct a power line through parts of the applicant’s lands – where the applicant commenced proceedings in the P & E Court seeking declarations that the second respondent’s proposal to have the land designated for community infrastructure was unauthorised – where the primary judge made directions in relation to resolving the dispute by way of filing affidavits – where the applicant sought to have those orders set aside – where the applicant filed a separate originating application in the Court of Appeal regarding the designation of the land – where the second respondent subsequently suspended the designation process – where the applications came on for hearing on 11 August 2011 – where the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the originating application – where the Court ordered the applicant to pay the Ministers’ costs and refused to order ENERGEX to pay the applicant’s costs on 30 August 2011 – where the applicant then filed a further application on 5 September 2011 seeking the judgment of the Court of 30 August 2011 to be reconsidered in the inherent jurisdiction, for the judgment to be set aside, for errors in the judgment to be corrected pursuant to UCPR 388(2), for the applicant to have leave to appeal under s 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995, for the application for costs to be heard by a differently constituted court, and costs – whether the Court has power to set aside its orders of 30 August 2011 – whether, if the power exists, it should be exercised in accordance with the applicant’s wishes
PROCEDURE – COSTS – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where…
Continue reading Hammercall Pty Ltd v Robertson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hammercall Pty Ltd v Robertson [2011] QCA 380
- Case
- [2011] QCA 380
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues addressed by the Court of Appeal were whether it had the power to set aside its orders of 30 August 2011 and, if so, whether it should exercise that power in accordance with the applicant's wishes. The Court also considered whether an order for costs on the indemnity basis should be made given the respondents' claim that the applications were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Additionally, the Court examined whether Chesterman JA should recuse himself from hearing the 5 September 2011 application on grounds of apprehended bias, as requested by the applicant.
The Court of Appeal found that it did not have the power to set aside its orders of 30 August 2011, nor should it exercise such power if it existed. The Court concluded that the applications were indeed frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, justifying the order for costs on the indemnity basis. Chesterman JA's application for recusal was also dismissed as there was no apprehended bias. The Court's orders included the dismissal of the 5 September and 14 November 2011 applications, and the requirement that Hammercall pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to those applications, to be assessed on the indemnity basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
In Appeal Nos 2750 of 2011 and 3608 of 2011:
1. The applications of 5 September and 14 November 2011 are dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the applications, to be assessed on the indemnity basis
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.