Riverside Development Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Riverside Development Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2021] QPEC 56

PARTIES:

RIVERSIDE DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD (ACN 084 611 049)

applicant

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

first respondent

And

DEXUS FUNDS MANAGEMENT LTD (ACN 060 920 783)

second respondent

And

PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD (ACN 000 001 007)

third respondent

FILE NO/S:

401 of 2021

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment Court

PROCEEDING:

Application in pending proceeding

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 October 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 October 2021

JUDGE:

Williamson QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Paragraph 2 of the Application in pending proceeding filed 10 September 2021 (Court document No. 52) is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS – where applicant seeks orders for further disclosure – whether documents sought are directly relevant to an issue in dispute – whether order for further disclosure should be made.

LEGISLATION:

Planning & Environment Court Rules 2018, r 4

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, rr 209, 211 and 223

CASES:

COUNSEL:

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Nicholls & Anor [2013] QSC 68

Mr C Hughes QC for the applicant
Mr B Job QC and Mr Lyons of Counsel for the first respondent
Mr D Gore QC and Mr Ware of Counsel for the second and third respondents

SOLICITORS:

Herbert Smith Freehills for the applicant

City Legal for the first respondent

King & Wood Mallesons for the second and third respondents

1. The Application in pending proceeding before the Court seeks orders for further disclosure.  More particularly, the applicant seeks an order compelling:

   (a)Council, the first respondent, to disclose four categories of documents said to be directly relevant to an issue/s in dispute (‘Paragraph 1’); and

   (b)the second and third respondents (‘the Dexus parties’) to disclose a document described as the Facilitation agreement (‘Paragraph 2’), which is also said to be directly relevant to an issue/s in dispute.

2. The application came on for hearing before me on 8 October 2021.  At the outset, Mr Hughes QC sought an order adjourning the hearing in relation to Paragraph 1.  I acceded to this request. This part of the application was adjourned, with Council’s consent, to 22 October 2021. 

3. Oral argument proceeded before me in relation to Paragraph 2 of the application.

4. The Dexus parties opposed Paragraph 2 of the application. 

5. By way of background, the applicant’s Amended Originating Application (AOA) seeks declaratory relief and consequential orders in relation to the validity of a development approval granted by Council’s delegate on 17 December 2020.  The approval facilitates a significant redevelopment of Eagle Street Pier.

6. The land to which the development application, and subsequent approval, relates is described in paragraph 17 of the AOA as follows:[1]

   [1]This is admitted at paragraph 1B of the ‘Response to the Amended Originating Application by Dexus & PTC’.

   “The land, as described by the Second Respondent in the…