Mudie v Gainriver Pty Ltd - [2001] QCA 382

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Mudie v Gainriver P/L & Ors [2001] QCA 382
PARTIES: KAREN GAYE MUDIE
(applicant/appellant)
v
GAINRIVER PTY LTD ACN 010 965 929
(first respondent/first respondent)
GATTON SHIRE COUNCIL
(second respondent/second respondent)
FILE NO/S: Appeal No 142 of 2001
P&E No 1387 of 1997
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Planning and Environment Appeal
ORIGINATING
COURT: Planning and Environment Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 14 September 2001
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 31 August 2001
JUDGES: Davies and Thomas JJA, White J
Judgment of the Court
ORDER: Allow appeal. The respondents are ordered to pay to the
appellant costs of the appeal. The order below is varied:
a) by adding the following:
“1. That Gainriver Pty Ltd cause the construction of the
dedicated road to the east of the land of Gainriver Pty Ltd
situated at Flagstone Creek Road to be removed and the
level of the road be restored to natural surface level;”
and

b) by renumbering the remaining paragraphs 2, 3 and 4
respectively.
CATCHWORDS: LOCAL GOVERNMENT – SUBDIVISION OF LAND - CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF COUNCILS – ROADS AND ACCESS – ROADS – where respondent developer constructed a road adjacent to the appellant’s land without council approval – where appellant under continuing disadvantage from its presence – where council ultimately approved the road – whether the trial judge erred in failing to order that the road be removed
PROCEDURE – INFERIOR COURTS – PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT – DISCRETIONARY POWERS – NATURE OF DISCRETION – where the Court’s proper function in such matters is to perform a balancing exercise with a view to matters of private and public interest – road unlawfully built by developer upon dedicated public road area – public nuisance – whether order should be made for its removal – where trial judge placed too much emphasis on attitude of Council – failure to perform requisite balancing exercise
Local Government Act 1993 (Qld), s514, s901
Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990
(Qld), s2.23(1), s2.23(1)(a), s2.24, s2.24(4), s2.24(5)(a),
s2.24(5)(b), s2.24(5)(c)
Gatton Shire Council v Mudie (1999) 103 LGERA 419,
considered
Mudie v Gatton Shire Council [1998] QPECR 375,
considered
Tynan v Meharg (1998) 101 LGERA 255, followed
Warringah Shire Council v Sedevic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335,
followed
COUNSEL: A Vasta QC for the appellant
P J Lyons QC for the respondents
SOLICITORS: Andrew P Abaza for the appellant
King & Company for the first and second respondents

THE COURT: The appellant in this case is Mrs Mudie who commenced proceedings in the Planning and Environment Court in April 1997 seeking relief against Gainriver Pty Ltd (a developer of a neighbouring property) and the Gatton Shire Council. The parties will be referred to respectively as Mrs Mudie, Gainriver and the Council.
Both Gainriver and Mrs Mudie owned neighbouring properties with a frontage to Flagstone Creek Road. The relevant area forms part of the eastern escarpment of the Great Dividing Range and contains very steep areas. Their properties were separated by…

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 Mudie v Gainriver Pty Ltd 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: [2001] QCA 382
Decision Date: 14/09/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mudie v Gainriver Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the appellant, Mudie, and the respondent, Gainriver Pty Ltd, regarding the construction of a road adjacent to the appellant's land. The road was built without the necessary council approval, leading to ongoing disadvantages for the appellant. Despite the council eventually approving the road, Mudie sought to have it removed, arguing that the trial judge's failure to order its removal constituted an error of law.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred by not ordering the removal of the road constructed by Gainriver Pty Ltd. The court had to determine whether the appellant's disadvantage and the absence of initial council approval justified the road's removal, notwithstanding the subsequent approval. The court also needed to consider the implications of the council's eventual approval on the appellant's right to seek the road's removal.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in not ordering the removal of the road. The court held that the appellant's ongoing disadvantage and the absence of initial council approval were sufficient grounds to require the road's removal. The court emphasised that the subsequent approval by the council did not negate the appellant's right to seek the road's removal due to the initial lack of consent. The court ordered that Gainriver Pty Ltd must remove the road and restore the land to its natural surface level. Additionally, Gainriver Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Allow appeal. The respondents are ordered to pay to the

appellant costs of the appeal. The order below is varied:

a) by adding the following:

“1. That Gainriver Pty Ltd cause the construction of the

dedicated road to the east of the land of Gainriver Pty Ltd

situated at Flagstone Creek Road to be removed and the

level of the road be restored to natural surface level;”

and

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.