Tipler v Moreton Bay City Council - [2025] QSC 194

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Tipler & Ors v Moreton Bay City Council [2025] QSC 194

PARTIES:

HARLEY TIPLER

(First applicant )

SHERRENE REILLY
(Second applicant)

KARL-HEINZ EICHIN
(Third applicant)

MAERIE DOELAND
(Fourth applicant)

STACEY RICHARDSON
(Fifth applicant)

MATTHEW JENKINSON
(Sixth applicant)

TRENT LUGGE
(Seventh applicant)

NICHOLAS CARBONE
(Eight Applicant)

NICHOLAS MCKINLAY
(Ninth Applicant)

STEVEN BOBELDYK
(Tenth Applicant)

ANGELA BOBELDYK
(Eleventh Applicant)

v
MORETON BAY COUNCIL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 2741/25

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Ex tempore reasons delivered 15 August 2025,

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 August 2025

JUDGE:

Smith J

ORDER:

1. The respondent is restrained, until further order, from taking any action to enforce the notices issued under the Camping on Public Land and Local Law 2023, the Alteration of Public Land Local Law 2023 or another local law and given to various applicants.

2. Otherwise order as per the draft to be provided by the parties.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW –– where the applicants were homeless and sleeping rough in Kallangar – where the respondent decided they should be prohibited from camping on public land – whether this decision was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) – whether an interlocutory application should be granted – whether the respondent failed to give proper consideration to the applicant’s human rights in making the decisions

EQUITY – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted until trial – whether serious question to be tried – whether the balance of convenience militates in favour of an injunction

Alteration of Public Land Local Law 2023 ss 9, 19
Camping on Public Land Local Law 2023 s 13
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ss 8, 13, 16, 17, 25, 26, 58
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ss 7
Local Government Act 2009 (Qld)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats [2001] HCA 63; (2001) 208 CLR 199, applied
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neil [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57, applied
Johnstone v Carroll [2024] QSC 2; (2024) 329 IR 365, considered
Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd v Australian Aerospace Ltd
[2007] VSC 200, applied
Kestrel Coal Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2001] 1 Qd R 634, considered

S.N. Allen & Sons Ltd v Clifton [1902] St R Qd 167, cited

COUNSEL:

Mr M. Hickey OAM KC, Mr H. Clift and Mr N. Miranda for the applicants
Mr S. McLeod KC and Ms F. Nagorcka for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Basic Rights Queensland for the applicants
Clayton Utz for the respondent

Introduction

The applicants in this case are homeless people and are sleeping rough at 99 Goodfellows Road, Kallangur. They seek judicial review of the decisions made by the council which have the effect of prohibiting them from camping on public land.
It is argued that the council’s decision was made incompatibly with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HRA), and they seek an interlocutory injunction to restrain the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tipler v Moreton Bay City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QSC 194
Decision Date: 15 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in Tipler v Moreton Bay City Council were homeless individuals who had been residing in various locations around Kallangar, including Eddie Hyland Park, and were prohibited by the respondent council from camping on public land. The applicants sought judicial review of the council's decisions, alleging that they were incompatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HRA) and requested an interlocutory injunction to restrain the council from enforcing these decisions until the matter was heard. The applicants also argued that the council failed to properly consider their human rights when making these decisions.

The court was required to decide whether the council's decisions were indeed incompatible with the HRA and whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted pending the outcome of the substantive proceedings. The applicants needed to demonstrate that there was a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction.

The court found that the applicants had established the necessary criteria to obtain an interlocutory injunction before trial. The court acknowledged that the council's decisions may be unpopular among some members of the community, but emphasised that the HRA provides protections to all citizens, including the homeless. Given the vulnerability of the applicants and the potential loss of their homes during winter, the court considered it appropriate to protect them from such outcomes. Consequently, the court granted an interlocutory injunction in favour of the applicants.

The final orders made by the court restrained the council from taking any action to enforce the notices issued under specified local laws and given to the applicants, until further order. The applicants were also granted an interlocutory injunction pending the outcome of the substantive proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent is restrained, until further order, from taking any action to enforce the notices issued under the Camping on Public Land and Local Law 2023, the Alteration of Public Land Local Law 2023 or another local law and given to various applicants.

2. Otherwise order as per the draft to be provided by the parties.

Background

Background to the litigation

It is argued that the council’s decision was made incompatibly with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HRA), and they seek an interlocutory injunction to restrain the council from enforcing these decisions until the hearing of this matter, which at this stage is listed in November of 2025. I have had regard to all of the evidence and the submissions made in reaching my decision. Background Some of the applicants were living at Eddie Hyland Park, which is also public land controlled by the council. They left that location after notices were issued by council officers in April 2025. Before February 2025, there was a framework (the Persons Experiencing Homelessness Framework) which permitted people in the applicants’ position to camp on council land which was promulgated under the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld). After receiving complaints about homeless people from residents – in that regard, I have read Mr McCormick’s affidavit and Mr Mansfield’s affidavit – on 26 February 2025, the council announced it would repeal the camping framework with effect on 12 March 2025. At that time, almost all the applicants were homeless and sleeping out in the open, albeit, in tents. On the 9th of April 2025, council officers attended Eddie Hyland Park and purported to issue decision and compliance notices to the applicants, which required them to stop storing goods at the park and to stop camping there. It is alleged by the applicants there were very short timeframes. The next day, council officers attended the same park and issued other notices in similar terms. A few weeks later, on 24 April 2025, council employees returned to the park with, on one view, bulldozers, on the other, excavators, and disposed of several of the applicants’ belongings. Some of the applicants moved to Goodfellows Road on or around 10 May 2025 and have been sleeping there, rough, since. They applied for statutory review in other proceedings on 22 May 2025 concerning those notices. Despite this, on 18 June 2025, council employees attended Goodfellows Road. One of them gave out a map which denoted the area on which they were camping was council land. About an hour later, other employees returned and one of them told the applicants they had two weeks to move, and one applicant alleges that one employee asked him whether he had his paperwork from Eddie Hyland Park stating “Those documents still apply.” He said that they did not have to issue further documentation. On 30 June 2025, solicitors for the applicants wrote to the council through its solicitors to ask it not to take further action in light of the fact that proceedings were on foot. No substantive response was received at that point. On 2 July 2025, this matter and the related matter came before the court in the applications list and, by consent, orders were made to restrain the council from taking action in respect of the applicants on certain conditions and for this proceeding to be heard with proceeding 2054 of 2025.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In all of the circumstances, despite the able arguments of Mr McLeod KC, I am persuaded the applicants have established that which they need to, to obtain an interlocutory injunction before trial.Conclusion I can understand that some in the community might complain about homeless people living in their midst in tents. On the other hand, the HRA provides protections to all citizens, including the homeless. I consider it would be wrong not to protect vulnerable applicants from the potential loss of their homes in the midst of winter. Order In the circumstances, I am prepared to make an order as per paragraph 1 of the draft order proposed by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Tipler & Ors v Moreton Bay City Council [2025] QSC 194
PARTIES:	HARLEY TIPLER (First applicant ) SHERRENE REILLY (Second applicant) KARL-HEINZ EICHIN (Third applicant) MAERIE DOELAND (Fourth applicant) STACEY RICHARDSON (Fifth applicant) MATTHEW JENKINSON (Sixth applicant) TRENT LUGGE (Seventh applicant) NICHOLAS CARBONE (Eight Applicant) NICHOLAS MCKINLAY (Ninth Applicant) STEVEN BOBELDYK (Tenth Applicant) ANGELA BOBELDYK (Eleventh Applicant) v MORETON BAY COUNCIL (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 2741/25
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Ex tempore reasons delivered 15 August 2025,
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 August 2025
JUDGE:	Smith J
ORDER:	1. The respondent is restrained, until further order, from taking any action to enforce the notices issued under the *Camping on Public Land and Local Law 2023,* the *Alteration of Public Land Local Law 2023* or another local law and given to various applicants. 2. Otherwise order as per the draft to be provided by the parties.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW –– where the applicants were homeless and sleeping rough in Kallangar – where the respondent decided they should be prohibited from camping on public land – whether this decision was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) – whether an interlocutory application should be granted – whether the respondent failed to give proper consideration to the applicant’s human rights in making the decisions EQUITY – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted until trial – whether serious question to be tried – whether the balance of convenience militates in favour of an injunction Alteration of Public Land Local Law 2023 ss 9, 19 Camping on Public Land Local Law 2023 s 13 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ss 8, 13, 16, 17, 25, 26, 58 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ss 7 Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats [2001] HCA 63; (2001) 208 CLR 199, applied Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neil [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57, applied Johnstone v Carroll [2024] QSC 2; (2024) 329 IR 365, considered Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd v Australian Aerospace Ltd [2007] VSC 200, applied Kestrel Coal Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2001] 1 Qd R 634, considered S.N. Allen & Sons Ltd v Clifton [1902] St R Qd 167, cited
COUNSEL:	Mr M. Hickey OAM KC, Mr H. Clift and Mr N. Miranda for the applicants Mr S. McLeod KC and Ms F. Nagorcka for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Basic Rights Queensland for the applicants Clayton Utz for the respondent