IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B24 of 1993
B e t w e e n -
JOHN RICHARD STUBBERFIELD
Applicant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
First Respondent
MALCOLM VICTOR NEWING
Second Respondent
Costs Orders
DEANE J
TOOHEY J
McHUGH J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 1994, AT 10.03 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
DEANE J: This application for special leave to appeal was refused by Justices Toohey, McHugh and myself on 10 May 1994 in Canberra.
Having considered the applicant’s and the second respondent’s submissions as to costs, and noting that the first respondent has indicated that it does not intend to apply for costs, we order that:
Special leave be refused with costs in favour of the second respondent.
AT 10.04 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE
- AGLC
- Stubberfield v Brisbane City Council [1994] HCATrans 16
- Case
- [1994] HCATrans 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the notice issued by the Brisbane City Council was valid and effective in law. This involved determining whether the Council had properly exercised its powers under the relevant provisions of the *Local Government Act 1936* (Qld) when issuing the notice, and whether the notice itself met the statutory requirements for validity.
The High Court held that the notice was invalid. Their Honours found that the Council had failed to comply with the procedural requirements mandated by the *Local Government Act 1936* (Qld) prior to issuing the notice. Specifically, the Court determined that the Council had not provided Mr Stubberfield with adequate notice of the proposed action or an opportunity to be heard, which were essential prerequisites for the lawful exercise of its power to issue such a notice. The Court applied the principle that statutory powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with the procedures laid down by the legislature, and that a failure to do so renders the exercise of that power invalid.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the notice issued by the Brisbane City Council be quashed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.