Logan City Council v Brookes - [2020] QDC 24

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Logan City Council v Brookes [2020] QDC 24

PARTIES:

STEPHEN BALL ON BEHALF OF LOGAN CITY COUNCIL
(appellant)

v

THOMAS JOSEPH BROOKES
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD No 3519 of 2018
MC No 20650 of 2017

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal
Application for Leave to Adduce New Evidence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Beenleigh – Date of Delivery of Decision: 29 August 2018

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 December 2019

JUDGE:

Jarro DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to adduce fresh evidence is granted.

2.   The appeal is allowed.

3.   I will hear from the parties as to further orders.

CATCHWORDS:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING – PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROSECUTIONS – GENERALLY – where the respondent, without a permit, moved seven shipping containers onto his property – where the appellant commenced proceedings by way of seven complaints charging the respondent with carrying on assessable development without a permit contrary to s 578 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 – where the complaints were particularised as carrying on “building work” as defined in s 10 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 – where the learned magistrate found that each shipping container was not a “fixed structure” and as such did not amount to carrying on building work – whether the learned magistrate erred in finding that the movement of the shipping containers was not “building work”

EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EVIDENCE LAW – RULINGS AND FINDINGS – where the learned magistrate admitted into evidence an agreed statement of facts containing purported admissions pursuant to s 148A of the Justices Act 1886 – where the respondent was self-represented at trial – where the respondent argues on appeal that he did not consent to the agreed statement of facts – where the agreed statement of facts was tendered by the appellant without objection from the respondent – where the respondent later stated in the trial that some facts were agreed but others were not – whether the respondent should be allowed to resile from the agreed statement of facts

MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – PROCEDURE – where the appellant applied for leave to adduce new evidence – where the appellant seeks to adduce evidence of correspondence between the parties in relation to the agreed statement of facts tendered at trial so as to answer the respondent’s argument on appeal – the test in Pavlovic v Commissioner of Police [2007] 1 Qd R 344 – whether the appellant should be granted leave to adduce new evidence

Justices Act 1886, s 148A, s 222, s 223

Sustainable Planning Act 2009, s 7, s 10, s 578

Dafydd v The Commissioner of Police [2013] QDC 12, cited.

Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps [1899] AC 99, applied.

Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 606, considered.

Mann v Sunshine Cost Regional Council [2017] QDC 277, followed.

McKay v Dedman [2015] QDC 55, considered.

Pavlovic v Commissioner of Police

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 Logan City Council v Brookes 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: [2020] QDC 24
Decision Date: 10 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Logan City Council v Brookes, the council sought to challenge the respondent's movement of seven shipping containers onto his property, without a permit, by way of prosecution for carrying on assessable development without a permit. This was pursuant to section 578 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, which the council alleged constituted "building work" as defined in section 10 of the same Act. The learned magistrate dismissed the complaints, finding that each shipping container was not a "fixed structure" and therefore did not amount to carrying on building work. The council appealed this decision.

The central issue in the appeal was whether the learned magistrate erred in finding that the movement of the shipping containers was not "building work". Additionally, there was a dispute regarding the admissibility of an agreed statement of facts, which the respondent argued he did not consent to, despite the appellant's assertion that the respondent had not objected to it at the trial. The respondent claimed that some facts were agreed, but others were not. The third issue was whether the appellant should be granted leave to adduce new evidence, specifically correspondence between the parties in relation to the agreed statement of facts.

The court held that the movement of the shipping containers constituted "building work" as defined in section 10 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, and thus the learned magistrate erred in finding otherwise. In relation to the agreed statement of facts, the court found that while the respondent had not explicitly objected to the statement at trial, he had subsequently stated that some facts were not agreed. The court held that the respondent should be allowed to resile from the agreed statement of facts. Lastly, the court granted leave to adduce new evidence in accordance with the test in Pavlovic v Commissioner of Police [2007] 1 Qd R 344.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for further proceedings. Leave to adduce fresh evidence was granted, and the court will hear from the parties as to further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to adduce fresh evidence is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. I will hear from the parties as to further orders.

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:	Logan City Council v Brookes [2020] QDC 24
PARTIES:	STEPHEN BALL ON BEHALF OF LOGAN CITY COUNCIL (appellant) v THOMAS JOSEPH BROOKES (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD No 3519 of 2018 MC No 20650 of 2017
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeal Application for Leave to Adduce New Evidence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Beenleigh – Date of Delivery of Decision: 29 August 2018
DELIVERED ON:	10 March 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 December 2019
JUDGE:	Jarro DCJ
ORDERS:	1. Leave to adduce fresh evidence is granted. 2. The appeal is allowed. 3. I will hear from the parties as to further orders.
CATCHWORDS:	ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING – PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROSECUTIONS – GENERALLY – where the respondent, without a permit, moved seven shipping containers onto his property – where the appellant commenced proceedings by way of seven complaints charging the respondent with carrying on assessable development without a permit contrary to s 578 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 – where the complaints were particularised as carrying on “building work” as defined in s 10 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 – where the learned magistrate found that each shipping container was not a “fixed structure” and as such did not amount to carrying on building work – whether the learned magistrate erred in finding that the movement of the shipping containers was not “building work” EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EVIDENCE LAW – RULINGS AND FINDINGS – where the learned magistrate admitted into evidence an agreed statement of facts containing purported admissions pursuant to s 148A of the Justices Act 1886 – where the respondent was self-represented at trial – where the respondent argues on appeal that he did not consent to the agreed statement of facts – where the agreed statement of facts was tendered by the appellant without objection from the respondent – where the respondent later stated in the trial that some facts were agreed but others were not – whether the respondent should be allowed to resile from the agreed statement of facts MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – PROCEDURE – where the appellant applied for leave to adduce new evidence – where the appellant seeks to adduce evidence of correspondence between the parties in relation to the agreed statement of facts tendered at trial so as to answer the respondent’s argument on appeal – the test in Pavlovic v Commissioner of Police [2007] 1 Qd R 344 – whether the appellant should be granted leave to adduce new evidence Justices Act 1886, s 148A, s 222, s 223 Sustainable Planning Act 2009, s 7, s 10, s 578 Dafydd v The Commissioner of Police [2013] QDC 12, cited. Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps [1899] AC 99, applied. Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 606, considered. Mann v Sunshine Cost Regional Council [2017] QDC 277, followed. McKay v Dedman [2015] QDC 55, considered. Pavlovic v Commissioner of Police