Minimarc Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council

[2010] QPEC 84

[2010] QPEC 84

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 3542 of 2009

MINIMARC PTY LTD	Appellant
and
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL & ANOR	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 02/09/2010

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Developer appeal against Council refusal (contrary to recommendation of Council officers) - order made at Council's request for a without prejudice meeting (which councillors desired to attend) notwithstanding appellant's opposition - progress of appeal to hearing not compromised

HIS HONOUR:  The court has made an order in terms of the initialled draft, which is the one proffered by Mr Law, rather than one proffered by Mr Nelms who represents the appellant developer.  There is a significant difference between them.

The order that the court has made against Mr Nelms' strong opposition requires the parties to attend, participate in, act reasonably and genuinely in a without prejudice meeting to attempt to limit or resolve the issues in dispute, if required, by 16 September 2010, which is two weeks away.

Mr Nelms submits that this step is probably pointless, given the failure of a mediation exercise, that it is costly in trouble, time and money, given that the practice is said to be that participants in such a conference are likely to attend in large battalions backed up by lawyers, etc.

The court's order does not commit either side to provide any particular number of attendees or say anything about the qualifications and roles that the attendees might have.

Mr Law for the Council says that from his client's point of view the point of the meeting is to allow the attendance of a couple of councillors who have taken a particular interest in the development proposal.  It appears to be a contentious one, given that council officers recommended approval.  The councillors to this stage have taken a different view.

Mr Law says the councillors want this opportunity to present their views to the appellant.  In response to my question, he told the court that the point of that was not to persuade the appellant to give up but rather to modify its proposal.

The meeting will not delay progress towards the hearing in the November sittings which the appellant wants.

Understandably, I have misgivings about ordering a meeting which the appellant is so opposed to, but in the particular circumstances I think it is the appropriate course.

...

HIS HONOUR:  I will put a comma at the end of paragraph 4 and I will add "rather than on 9 September 2010."

Order as per initialled draft.

‑‑‑‑‑