Isaac Regional Council v Warner - [2019] QDC 196

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Isaac Regional Council v Warner [2019] QDC 196

PARTIES:

ISAAC REGIONAL COUNCIL
(appellant)

v

JANICE WARNER
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D51/18

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

10 October 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 June 2019

JUDGE:

Moynihan QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.The appeal is allowed.

2.The orders of the magistrate are set aside.

3.A new trial is ordered before a different magistrate.

4.The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

5.The costs of the first trial are reserved to the magistrate hearing the re-trial    .

CATCHWORDS:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT – POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF COUNCILS GENERALLY – POWERS GENERALLY – EXERCISE OF POWERS – GENERALLY – where the council obtained an enforcement order against the respondent due to her failure to comply with public health orders – where the appellant was found to have trespassed by entering the respondent’s property at a time earlier than that specified in the enforcement order – where the magistrate awarded a global amount for both compensation and damages for trespass – where the magistrate failed to indicate the amount attributed under each heading – whether the magistrate’s failure to give reasons identifying the amount allowed under each heading constitutes an error of law

LOCAL GOVERNMENT – POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF COUNCILS GENERALLY – POWERS GENERALLY – EXERCISE OF POWERS – GENERALLY – where the respondent claimed compensation for items of value unnecessarily disposed of from the property – whether the power to claim compensation under s 422 of the Public Health Act was engaged

District Court Act1967 (Qld), s 113
Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld), s 45
Public Health Act 2005 (Qld), s 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 385, 386, 387, 388, 388A, 389, 390, 390A, 393, 422

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, sch 3

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 770

Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424, cited
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1, cited
McIntyre & Anor v Tully [2000] QCA 115, applied
O’Brien v Komesaroff (1982) 150 CLR 310, cited

Rains v Frost Enterprises [1975] Qd R 287, cited

Ramey v Body Corporate for GC3 CTS38396 & Anor [2012] QDC 397, cited

Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres [2000] 2 Qd R 83, cited

COUNSEL:

B Vass for the applicant
S McLennan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Wallace & Wallace Lawyers for the applicant
Beckey Knight & Elliot Lawyers for the respondent

Introduction

Janice Warner (the respondent) owned a house and land situated at Moranbah, Queensland in the district of the Isaac Regional Council (the appellant). In 2011, the appellant received numerous complaints from the respondent’s neighbours relating to public health concerns as a result of the accumulation of waste and vermin at the respondent’s premises.

The appellant issued the respondent with a public health order for a public health risk at that address under s 23 of the Public…

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.

Continue reading Isaac Regional Council v Warner

Details

AGLC: Isaac Regional Council v Warner [2019] QDC 196
Case: [2019] QDC 196
Decision Date: 10 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Isaac Regional Council, the appellant, sought an appeal against a decision of the Magistrates Court of Queensland, where the respondent was awarded damages and compensation following a trespass incident on her property. The respondent had previously been issued an enforcement order by the appellant Council due to her non-compliance with public health orders. The appellant claimed that the magistrate erred in failing to allocate the awarded compensation and damages under the correct legal headings. The respondent further sought compensation for items of value disposed of from her property, which the appellant argued was not within the scope of the compensation claim under section 422 of the Public Health Act.

The primary legal issues in this appeal revolved around the allocation of the awarded compensation and damages by the magistrate and the scope of compensation claimable under section 422 of the Public Health Act. The appellant argued that the magistrate's failure to clearly identify the amounts awarded under each heading constituted an error of law. Additionally, the appellant contested whether the respondent's claim for compensation for items of value unnecessarily disposed of from her property fell within the scope of the compensation claim under the Act. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the magistrate's decision was correct and that the claim for compensation was within the scope of the Act.

The Court found that the magistrate's failure to allocate the awarded compensation and damages under the correct legal headings did indeed constitute an error of law. The Court held that a clear allocation of the amounts awarded under each heading is necessary to ensure that the decision is transparent and understandable. Furthermore, the Court found that the respondent's claim for compensation for items of value unnecessarily disposed of from her property was not within the scope of the compensation claim under section 422 of the Public Health Act. The Court determined that the Act only allowed for compensation for damage caused to property, not for the disposal of items of value. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the magistrate were set aside.

In light of the findings, the Court ordered a new trial before a different magistrate, with the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. The costs of the first trial were reserved to the magistrate hearing the re-trial. This decision emphasises the importance of clear reasoning and allocation of amounts in court decisions, as well as the necessity to adhere to the specific provisions of legislation when awarding compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The appeal is allowed.

2.The orders of the magistrate are set aside.

3.A new trial is ordered before a different magistrate.

4.The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

5.The costs of the first trial are reserved to the magistrate hearing the re-trial .

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:	Isaac Regional Council v Warner [2019] QDC 196
PARTIES:	ISAAC REGIONAL COUNCIL (appellant) v JANICE WARNER (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D51/18
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	10 October 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 June 2019
JUDGE:	Moynihan QC DCJ
ORDER:	1.The appeal is allowed. 2.The orders of the magistrate are set aside. 3.A new trial is ordered before a different magistrate. 4.The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal. 5.The costs of the first trial are reserved to the magistrate hearing the re-trial .
CATCHWORDS:	LOCAL GOVERNMENT – POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF COUNCILS GENERALLY – POWERS GENERALLY – EXERCISE OF POWERS – GENERALLY – where the council obtained an enforcement order against the respondent due to her failure to comply with public health orders – where the appellant was found to have trespassed by entering the respondent’s property at a time earlier than that specified in the enforcement order – where the magistrate awarded a global amount for both compensation and damages for trespass – where the magistrate failed to indicate the amount attributed under each heading – whether the magistrate’s failure to give reasons identifying the amount allowed under each heading constitutes an error of law LOCAL GOVERNMENT – POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF COUNCILS GENERALLY – POWERS GENERALLY – EXERCISE OF POWERS – GENERALLY – where the respondent claimed compensation for items of value unnecessarily disposed of from the property – whether the power to claim compensation under s 422 of the Public Health Act was engaged District Court Act1967 (Qld), s 113 Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld), s 45 Public Health Act 2005 (Qld), s 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 385, 386, 387, 388, 388A, 389, 390, 390A, 393, 422 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, sch 3 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 770 Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424, cited Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1, cited McIntyre & Anor v Tully [2000] QCA 115, applied O’Brien v Komesaroff (1982) 150 CLR 310, cited Rains v Frost Enterprises [1975] Qd R 287, cited Ramey v Body Corporate for GC3 CTS38396 & Anor [2012] QDC 397, cited Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres [2000] 2 Qd R 83, cited
COUNSEL:	B Vass for the applicant S McLennan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Wallace & Wallace Lawyers for the applicant Beckey Knight & Elliot Lawyers for the respondent