Inglis v. Brisbane City Council

Case

[2009] QPEC 26

2 April 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

[2009] QPEC 26

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 230 of 2006

MARION INGLIS Appellant

and

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 02/04/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Appeal against Council refusal of permit authorizing demolition dismissed for want of prosecution.

HIS HONOUR:  The Court makes an order striking out this appeal for want of prosecution.  The appeal is brought on for mention as a result of a review in the Registry of inactive files.  It was commenced on the 31st of January 2006.  Nothing has happened since the respondent Council filed an entry of appearance on the 13th of February 2006.

The Registrar has written to the self-represented appellant indicating the matter would be listed if nothing happened.  That was a couple of months ago.

The appellant has apparently been giving assurances that a notice of discontinuance has been filed (and maybe, too, that a notice of discontinuance would be filed) but nothing appears on the Court file.

The confusion there has been is probably attributable to there having been commenced in the Court another appeal relating to the same unsuccessful development application which sought authority to demolish a house in a demolition control precinct.  That was appeal 223 of 2006 in which the appellants are Robert and Paul Inglis, represented by a town planner.  Notice of discontinuance has been filed in that matter.

I won't hold Ms Johnston to this, but she's indicated from the Bar Table that the house is still there, so those who wish to bring an end to that situation appear to have accepted the Council's determination.

The surrounding circumstances provide the Court with an unusual level of comfort in striking out the appeal for want of prosecution. The matter is similar to the matter of Neolido Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council, 4754 of 2004, in which, for reasons which are published at [2009] QPEC 13. I took a similar course. So, the appeal is struck out for want of prosecution.

-----

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

0