Trinity Park Investments Pty Ltd v Fabcot & Ors; Dexus Funds Management Limited v Fabcot Pty Ltd & Ors

The case of Trinity Park Investments Pty Ltd v Fabcot & Ors and Dexus Funds Management Limited v Fabcot Pty Ltd & Ors involved appeals from the Planning and Environment Court (P&E Court) of Queensland. The disputes centred on preliminary approvals and development permits issued by the Council for a proposed development. The appeals were allowed by the Court of Appeal and remitted back to the P&E Court. The subsequent issue was whether the P&E Court correctly ordered the adducing of further evidence at the remitted hearing.

The legal issues in this case primarily concerned the scope and limits of the evidence that could be presented at the remitted hearing, as well as the discretion of the P&E Court in allowing such evidence. The applicants, Trinity and Dexus, sought leave to adduce further evidence, which included statements from new experts. The P&E Court granted leave but imposed specific limitations on the nature and scope of the evidence to be presented.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's order, while granting leave to adduce further evidence, was subject to certain limitations which were clearly set out in the reasons. The limitations focused on preventing the introduction of new planning evidence and evidence concerning the meaning of statutory terms, while allowing for evidence relevant to changes in demographics, economic activity, and need for the proposed development from a specified date.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the P&E Court did not err in limiting the scope of the evidence, given that the primary judge had already explored the issues extensively and had the discretion to manage the case in a fair and just manner. The court emphasized that the primary judge's decision to proceed with the existing evidence and undisturbed findings was not challenged, and thus the order was within the bounds of the primary judge's discretion.

In summary, the Court of Appeal refused the applications for leave to appeal and to remit the case to a different judge. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on the standard basis. Bond JA agreed with Morrison JA's reasoning and added that the applicants had failed to clearly identify the alleged error or mistake in law, which was necessary for an appeal under section 63 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016.