SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Pearson v Thuringowa City Council [2005] QCA 310
PARTIES:
ANGUS ALEXANDER PEARSON
(applicant/appellant)
v
THURINGOWA CITY COUNCIL
(respondent/respondent)FILE NO/S:
CA No 94 of 2005
DC No 208 of 2004
MC No 182464 of 2003DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Application for Extension of Time s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:
26 August 2005
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
15 August 2005
JUDGES:
McPherson and Keane JJA and Dutney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDER:
1. Application for extension of time granted
2. Application for leave to appeal dismissed
3. Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of each application to be assessed on the standard basis
CATCHWORDS:
STATUTES - BY-LAWS AND REGULATIONS - CONSTRUCTION - PARTICULAR WORDS - where
s 97(1) Standard Building Regulation 1993 (Qld) prohibits the use of certain types of buildings for "residential purposes" without the approval of the relevant local government - where applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court of using a shed in contravention of this prohibition - where applicant's appeal against his conviction to the District Court was dismissed - where there was unchallenged evidence that the shed used by the applicant was a building of the type subject to the prohibition on use for "residential purposes" and that no approval had been sought from the relevant local government - where the applicant admitted to regularly using the shed for food preparation, washing and storage - where the applicant also admitted to receiving mail and telephone calls at the shed - where the applicant did not sleep in the shed but in a nearby camper van - whether the Magistrate at first instance had been correct to find that the applicant had used the shed for "residential purposes"A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth), s 195-1
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Residential Tenancies Act 1994 (Qld)
Standard Building Regulation 1993 (Qld), s 97(1)
Marana Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 307; (2004) 214 ALR 190, considered
Zinace P/L v Tomlin & Ors [2003] QCA 102; Appeal No 195 of 2003, 12 March 2003, cited
COUNSEL:
The appellant appeared on his own behalf
G P Lynham for the respondentSOLICITORS:
The appellant appeared on his own behalf
MacDonnells for the respondent
McPHERSON JA:
I agree with the reasons of Keane JA for dismissing this application with costs. The question in dispute is primarily, if not exclusively, one of fact as to which there are already concurrent findings of the Magistrates Court, and, on appeal from it, the District Court. In making it a statutory requirement in
s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 that a further and third appeal be permitted only with leave of this Court, Parliament plainly intended that the discretion conferred by that provision should be favourably…
Continue reading Pearson v Thuringowa City Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pearson v Thuringowa City Council [2005] QCA 310
- Case
- [2005] QCA 310
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court examined the definition of "residential purposes" under the Standard Building Regulation 1993 (Qld) and considered the broader context in which the shed was used. It was noted that although Pearson did not sleep in the shed, his extensive use of it for activities typically associated with living quarters supported the Magistrate's finding. The Court also considered relevant case law and statutory provisions to determine if the Magistrate's decision was legally sound. The Court found that the Magistrate had correctly interpreted the regulation and applied it to the facts of the case.
The Court concluded that the Magistrate's decision was legally correct and dismissed Pearson's application for leave to appeal. The Court also granted Pearson an extension of time for the application but ordered him to pay the respondent's costs for both applications, which were to be assessed on the standard basis. The orders reflect the Court's view that while Pearson's activities in the shed were significant, they still amounted to using the building for residential purposes, thus falling within the prohibition of the regulation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for extension of time granted
2. Application for leave to appeal dismissed
3. Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of each application to be assessed on the standard basis
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.