Pearson v Thuringowa City Council

Case [2005] QCA 310


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 2003

DIVISION:

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 made

ORDER:

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 respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
MacDonnells for the respondent

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Pearson v Thuringowa City Council [2005] QCA 310
Case
[2005] QCA 310
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Pearson, was convicted in the Magistrates Court for using a shed in contravention of the Standard Building Regulation 1993 (Qld), s 97(1), which prohibits the use of certain buildings for residential purposes without the approval of the relevant local government. This conviction was appealed to the District Court, which upheld the decision, leading Pearson to seek leave to appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal. The central issue before the Court was whether the shed used by Pearson constituted a "residential purpose" as defined under the regulation, despite him not sleeping in it but using it for food preparation, washing, storage, and receiving mail and telephone calls.

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.