Module2 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council - [2006] QCA 226

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Module2 P/L v Brisbane CC [2006] QCA 226
PARTIES: MODULE2 PTY LTD ACN 010 936 553
(applicant/appellant)
v
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S: Appeal No 3732 of 2006
SC No 10851 of 2005
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX
TEMPORE ON: 19 July 2006
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 19 July 2006
JUDGES: Williams JA, Keane JA and Holmes JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER: 1. Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW –
GROUNDS OF REVIEW – FAILURE TO OBSERVE
STATUTORY PROCEDURE – where the appellant is the
registered owner of land currently used for sport and recreation
purposes – the respondent gave notice to the appellant pursuant
to s 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld) of its intention
to resume the land – whether an error in the notices of intention
to resume invalidated those notices – whether the land was being
resumed for an improper purpose
Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld), s 5(1)(b), s 7, s 10(1)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998)
194 CLR 355, applied
COUNSEL: K S Howe for the applicant/appellant
R G Bain QC, with M A Williamson, for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Colwell Wright for the applicant/appellant
Brisbane City Council Legal Practice for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA:

(1) At first instance the appellant sought a statutory order

of review pursuant to section 20 of the Judicial Review the provisions of the Act as they applied as at 29 November 2005. The application was dismissed and the appellant now appeals to this Court.
Act 1991 of the decision made by the respondent on 29
November 2005 under section 10(1) of the Acquisition of

(2) Section 5(1)(b) of the Act provides that a local

government may take land under the Act for any purpose set out in the Schedule which the local government may lawfully carry out. The Schedule to the Act sets out
numerous purposes for which land may be taken under and lawfully take land under the Act, the proposed use of the land would have to be covered by at least one of the purposes stated in the Schedule. It should also be noted that section 5(2) provides that the power to take land for a purpose stated in the Schedule includes power to take land "for any purpose incidental to the carrying out" of that purpose.
subject to the Act. Included in those purposes are
"parks" and "recreation grounds". It is clear from a
reading of the Schedule that each stated purpose is not
mutually exclusive and a proposed user of the land may
well fall under a number of the purposes stated therein.

(3) Section 7 then provides that the "constructing

authority", in this case the respondent local government, the notice of intention to…

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 Module2 Pty Ltd 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

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: [2006] QCA 226
Decision Date: 19/06/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Module2 Pty Ltd appealed a decision made by the Brisbane City Council, which refused their application for approval to develop land. The appellant argued that the decision was flawed because the Council failed to observe statutory procedure, specifically not providing adequate reasons for the refusal. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues in the case involved whether the Council's decision was legally sound and whether it complied with the statutory requirements for providing reasons. The appellant contended that the Council's refusal lacked sufficient detail to enable effective judicial review and was therefore unlawful. The Council defended its decision, asserting that it had followed the correct procedure and provided adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal examined the statutory provisions governing the approval process and the reasons required for refusal. It found that the reasons provided by the Council were sufficient and met the statutory requirements for a reasoned decision. The Court concluded that the refusal was legally valid and that the appellant's grounds for review were not substantiated. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed with costs

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:	Module2 P/L v Brisbane CC [2006] QCA 226
PARTIES:	MODULE2 PTY LTD ACN 010 936 553 (applicant/appellant) v BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL (respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 3732 of 2006 SC No 10851 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX
TEMPORE ON:	19 July 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 July 2006
JUDGES:	Williams JA, Keane JA and Holmes JA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – FAILURE TO OBSERVE STATUTORY PROCEDURE – where the appellant is the registered owner of land currently used for sport and recreation purposes – the respondent gave notice to the appellant pursuant to s 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld) of its intention to resume the land – whether an error in the notices of intention to resume invalidated those notices – whether the land was being resumed for an improper purpose
Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld), s 5(1)(b), s 7, s 10(1) Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, applied
COUNSEL:	K S Howe for the applicant/appellant R G Bain QC, with M A Williamson, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Colwell Wright for the applicant/appellant Brisbane City Council Legal Practice for the respondent