SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Johnston v Brisbane City Council & ors [2019] QSC 130
PARTIES:
NICOLE JOHNSTON
(applicant)
v
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(first respondent)
and
DAVID GILL
(second respondent)
and
GAIL HARTRIDGE
(third respondent)
and
GRAHAM MATHEWS(fourth respondent)
FILE NO:
SC No 4803 of 2018
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Originating Application
DELIVERED ON:
30 May 2019
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
14 December 2018
Supplementary written submissions 5 April 2019 and 12 April 2019JUDGE:
Wilson J
ORDERS:
The orders of the Court are:
1. The Decision and Orders made by the Councillor Conduct Review Panel in its Report dated 16 March 2018:
a. that the complaint was proven;
b. that the applicant is found under section 183(1) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld) to have engaged in “misconduct” within the meaning of section 178(3)(v) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld);
c. that the parties to the complaint be advised accordingly
d. that the applicant pay to the first respondent an amount equal to the monetary value of 50 penalty units;
be declared void and set aside.
2. The question of costs is adjourned to a date to be fixed.
CATCHWORDS:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT – REGULATION AND ADMINISTRATION – MEETINGS – PRESERVING ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF COUNCILLOR OR ALDERMAN – where the applicant is a Brisbane City councillor – where the first respondent’s Councillor Conduct Review Panel is a body established under and governed by the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld) – where the applicant attended a budget meeting of the first respondent – where the Chairperson directed the applicant to leave the meeting – where the Chairperson suspended the applicant from the service of the Chamber – where the applicant refused to comply – where the applicant was subsequently found to have engaged in “misconduct” by the Councillor Conduct Review Panel – where the applicant seeks judicial review of the Councillor Conduct Review Panel’s decision, either under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction – where the Councillor Conduct Review Panel has jurisdiction only to hear reviews of directions by Chairpersons to councillors to leave meetings – whether there was a valid direction made by the Chairperson pursuant to section 186A(2)(b) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld) – whether the Councillor Conduct Review Panel had jurisdiction – whether jurisdictional error occurred
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 10
City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld) s 3(2)(f), s 4, s 9, s 10, s 11(1), s 14(3)(c)(i), s 25, s 29, s 178, s 179, s 180(3), s 183(1), s 186A, s 226
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) s 30(1), s 47, s 49(1)
Meetings Local Law 2001 (Brisbane City Council) s 21, s 53
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681(1)
Australian Education Union v Department of Education and Children’s Services (2012) 248 CLR 1; [2012] HCA 3, cited
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163; [1995] HCA 58, cited
Eastman…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Johnston v Brisbane 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] QSC 130
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Chairperson had validly directed the applicant to leave the meeting under section 186A(2)(b) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010, and whether the Councillor Conduct Review Panel had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the applicant's review. The court examined whether any jurisdictional errors had occurred in the Panel’s handling of the review.
The court found that the Chairperson had indeed validly directed the applicant to leave the meeting. However, it also held that the Panel did not have jurisdiction to hear the review because the Panel’s jurisdiction was limited to reviews of directions by Chairpersons to councillors to leave meetings, and not to broader misconduct findings. Consequently, the decision of the Panel was deemed to be a jurisdictional error, and the orders made by the Panel were declared void and set aside. The court deferred the question of costs to a later date.
Orders
Orders of the court
The orders of the Court are:
1. The Decision and Orders made by the Councillor Conduct Review Panel in its Report dated 16 March 2018:
a. that the complaint was proven;
b. that the applicant is found under section 183(1) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld) to have engaged in “misconduct” within the meaning of section 178(3)(v) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld);
c. that the parties to the complaint be advised accordingly
d. that the applicant pay to the first respondent an amount equal to the monetary value of 50 penalty units;
be declared void and set aside.
2. The question of costs is adjourned to a date to be fixed.
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.