Sea Breeze (Qld) Pty Ltd v Gladstone Regional Council

[2009] QPEC 129

[2009] QPEC 129

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 2314 of 2009

SEA BREEZE (QLD) PTY LTD	Appellant
and
GLADSTONE REGIONAL COUNCIL	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 13/11/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Directions made for purposes of an appeal in absence of respondent Council, which had entered an appearance - no proper application for directions filed (rather a draft order indexed as an application) - in interest of saving costs, directions (allowing three months for the first step) made - Council to be notified it could seek changes under "liberty to apply"

HIS HONOUR:  The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft.  That involves a good deal of taking of short-cuts.  The respondent Council hasn't appeared today when called and in the Court's view, unsurprisingly:  the notice of appeal which Ms Weir's affidavit shows has gone to the respondent and also to the chief executive, contains no return date.

There is no application filed by the appellant for directions of the kind sought today to advance the appeal towards a hearing next June. What has been filed, and erroneously described in the Court's file index as an application, takes the form of an order which recites the Court's satisfaction as to compliance with section 4.1.41 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and goes on to set out directions.

That document was filed on the 6th of November 2009.  Mr Labone informs the Court that the proposed directions were posted to the Council after it had entered an appearance on the 9th of November 2009 and that there's been some acknowledgement of receipt.

There is nothing amounting to an application for directions.  There was a clue that the Council's attendance might be expected today at the foot of the document filed on the 6th of November 2009 which comprises, "This application is to be heard by the Court on the 13th day of November 2009" followed by the customary warning that orders might be made without further notice if there's no appearance.

It may be well a strong thing to identify something which doesn't identify itself as an application before page 2 with the exception of the footer on page 1:  "Application in Pending Proceeding."

Notwithstanding those unfavourable observations about the appellant's procedure, the directions are not at all onerous and indeed don't call for anything to be done for three months.

Liberty to apply is reserved to the parties and the Council will be able to take advantage of that should they have difficulty with any of the directions incorporated in the order.

In the interests of efficiency and avoiding waste of trouble and resources, I've made a judgment that the order should be made.  I've added a paragraph 12 in the following terms:
"The Registrar post a copy of this order to the respondent under cover of a letter advising that it may apply under the liberty to apply for variation of this order."

The other changes that I've made is to delete, from paragraph 4, to say that the mediation is on April the 9th.  That just enables the Court to organise the calendar more suitably.  It leaves you free to negotiate with the Registrar for a date that's convenient.

-----