[2000] QCA 45
COURT OF APPEAL
MCMURDO P
PINCUS JA
WILLIAMS J
Appeal No 817 of 2000
RON W URE Applicant (Plaintiff)
v.
NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL Respondent (Respondent)
BRISBANE
..DATE 28/02/2000
ORDER
THE PRESIDENT: In the circumstances, this is an appropriate case for leave to be given and I would order that leave to appeal be granted and that the costs of this application are costs in the cause.
PINCUS JA: I agree.
WILLIAMS J: I agree.
THE PRESIDENT: The order is as I have stated.
Details
- AGLC
- Ure v Noosa Shire Council [2000] QCA 45
- Case
- [2000] QCA 45
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Ron W Ure, the applicant, appealed against a decision made by the Noosa Shire Council, the respondent. The dispute pertains to the legal matters surrounding the enforcement of a building permit. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, comprising McMurdo P, Pincus JA, and Williams J, in Brisbane on 28 February 2000. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the decision of the respondent to enforce a building permit, which was denied by the lower court.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had established a valid claim for relief in the lower court. The Court of Appeal had to consider whether the applicant had demonstrated that the lower court had made an error in law or fact that warranted the granting of leave to appeal. Additionally, the Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the applicant's case had a reasonable prospect of success if the appeal were to proceed.
The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had not demonstrated a valid claim for relief in the lower court. The Court held that the applicant had not shown that the lower court had made an error in law or fact that warranted the granting of leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal also determined that the applicant's case did not have a reasonable prospect of success if the appeal were to proceed. As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and denied the application for leave to appeal.
The Court of Appeal ordered that the costs of the application for leave to appeal be costs in the cause. The applicant was not granted leave to appeal against the decision of the lower court.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had established a valid claim for relief in the lower court. The Court of Appeal had to consider whether the applicant had demonstrated that the lower court had made an error in law or fact that warranted the granting of leave to appeal. Additionally, the Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the applicant's case had a reasonable prospect of success if the appeal were to proceed.
The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had not demonstrated a valid claim for relief in the lower court. The Court held that the applicant had not shown that the lower court had made an error in law or fact that warranted the granting of leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal also determined that the applicant's case did not have a reasonable prospect of success if the appeal were to proceed. As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and denied the application for leave to appeal.
The Court of Appeal ordered that the costs of the application for leave to appeal be costs in the cause. The applicant was not granted leave to appeal against the decision of the lower court.
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.