Sita Queensland Pty Ltd v Queensland Transport

Sita Queensland Pty Ltd sought judicial review of decisions made by Queensland Transport relating to the provision of scheduled passenger services in the Gold Coast service contract area. The primary issue was whether the decision not to invite Harlingdale Pty Ltd to tender for the service contract was lawful. Sita, having acquired the business assets of Harlingdale, argued that it was adversely affected by this decision. The court had to determine whether the application for judicial review was made within a reasonable time and whether the proposed amendments to the statement of claim should be allowed.

The court found that the application for judicial review was made well beyond the reasonable time frame prescribed by the Judicial Review Act 1991. The decisions sought to be reviewed were made between November 1994 and August 1995, and the application was made in June 1998. The applicant claimed that it was not aware of the impact of these decisions until September 1996, but even then, there was a significant delay in bringing the proceedings. The court held that the delay was unreasonable and that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for it. Furthermore, the proposed amendments sought to add additional respondents and challenge further decisions, which the court deemed inappropriate given the significant passage of time and the potential prejudice to other parties.

Regarding the existing application, the court found that it should be dismissed as it was no longer capable of yielding meaningful relief. The applicant had not prosecuted the original application diligently, and significant time had elapsed, causing increased prejudice to Surfside, the entity awarded the service contract. The court also noted that the applicant's claims for damages under the Judicial Review Act were likely unfounded and that any common law claims should be pursued in a separate action.

The court ordered that the summons filed on 5 June 1998 be dismissed and that the original application for statutory order of review filed on 5 December 1996 be dismissed. The court reserved the matter of costs for further submissions.