Mac Services Group Ltd v Belyando Shire Council

[2007] QPEC 129

[2007] QPEC 129

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 2983 of 2007

MAC SERVICES GROUP LIMITED	Appellant
and
BELYANDO SHIRE COUNCIL	First Respondent
and
QUEENSLAND RAIL	Second Respondent
and
M & P SERVICES (QLD) PTY LTD	Third Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 31/10/2007
ORDER
Catchwords:

Consideration of suitable arrangements for disclosure where
hearing imminent.
HIS HONOUR: This is an unusual proceeding in which the

1

applicant seeks a declaration that what Queensland Rail is
doing, or proposing to do, on its land at Moranbah, involves a
material change of use requiring an impact assessment process
prior to the issue of a relevant development permit or

approval. That view is not shared by Queensland Rail or, it	10
seems, by the Council in light of established or pre-existing use rights. We are concerned, it seems, with railway land which, in the past, has been used for temporary accommodation for QR personnel.
20
The applicant is concerned that if the fifty or so
accommodation units, which there will be, are not required for QR personnel, they may be made available for the accommodation of others such as contractors working at nearby mines or even
"grey nomads" and other tourists. That activity would be	30
competitive with the applicant's own commercial activities in
the area. It has come to learn of QR's plans, although not in
any detail, through having been invited to tender to provide
its own services for the site and if Mr Quirk, the counsel
representing QR, is correct, the applicant indeed at times	40
last year provided services of its own to the site.
The applicant is to a large extent in the dark as to QR's
intentions not only for the future, as they might be held now,
but as they existed in relation to the site in the past - in	50

particular, from the point of view of any previous use that
might be relevant possibly having been abandoned. It is
particularly interested in obtaining disclosure for the light
it may shed on those aspects and also perhaps to preclude QR's 2 ORDER 60

1

use on the hearing of the application of material which might

cause surprise because it has not been disclosed.

The hearing of the application is scheduled to occur on the

22nd and 23rd of November, dates which are convenient to the	10
Court. The parties should be commended for cooperating in
identifying those dates. They are at loggerheads in respect
of what ought to precede it in terms of steps in the
proceeding. On the basis that the UCPR apply, the time for
disclosure is far away, even if the originating application,	20
which contains a brief statement of grounds, is treated as a the 17th of this month. Everything changes in light of the agreement as to the dates for hearing.
30
I am asked to make a preliminary determination about whether disclosure ought to be staggered, as QR suggest, so that the applicant would reveal its hand first or whether, as normally
happens, it ought to occur on a mutual basis on a particular
date. It would not be surprising in the present context if	40
documents were disclosed in dribs-and-drabs.
I am sympathetic to Mr Quirk's assertion that the making of
disclosure is likely to be somewhat onerous from QR's point of
view. That is on the basis that a selection process would	50

have to be gone through to identify what documents are
relevant to the issues (which are still amorphous) in the
interests of the party to whom disclosure is made not being
oppressed by bombardment with large amounts of irrelevant 3 ORDER 60

1

material.

Mr Job, for the applicant, has indicated acceptance from his
client's point of view of being so bombarded and a willingness

on the part of his client, or its representatives, to be	10
saddled with the task of determining what is relevant on the assumption that what is disclosed by QR might simply be the relevant files.
On that basis, I am inclined to determine in favour of the	20
applicant that disclosure ought to occur on the usual mutual
basis and very promptly. Indeed, the proposal is that it
occur by the close of business next Friday. The parties have
indicated that once I make that determination they may be able
to resolve other things but, in principle, I am happy with the	30
draft order handed up by Mr Job, which identifies Deacons in
the footer as the preparer of that draft order. It has to be
accepted that things may change in this proceeding as the
issues are refined but the time is so short that everyone has
to live with that.	40
...
HIS HONOUR: Order in terms of the Deacons draft, as amended
by me. I have initialled it.	50

-----

4 ORDER 60