Van Cuylenburg v Tablelands Regional Council - [2012] QCAT 406

CITATION:

Van Cuylenburg v Tablelands Regional Council [2012] QCAT 406

PARTIES:	Susan Van Cuylenburg
v
Tablelands Regional Council

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR182-10

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

31 August 2012

HEARD AT:

Cairns

DECISION OF:

Deanne Drummond, Member

DELIVERED ON:

31 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

ORDERS MADE:

1. Susan Van Cuylenburg is granted leave to withdraw the application.

2. Each party’s application for costs is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Review – declaration that dogs menacing dogs – both dogs subsequently died – now unnecessary to determine whether decision should be set aside – costs – each party to bear their own costs

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr Korn of Counsel instructed by Anne English of Bottoms English
RESPONDENT:	Dean Morzone of Counsel

REASONS FOR DECISION

On the 10 June 2010 Susan Van Cuylenburg filed an application in this Tribunal seeking that the decision of the Tablelands Regional Council dated 12 May 2010 be set aside. The Council’s decision declared her two dogs, Cassius and Sampson, regulated menacing docs pursuant to Chapter 4, Part 4 of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008.
Ms Van Cuylenburg also sought in her application that the Council pay her costs of the QCAT application.
In July, 2011 (following the hearing but prior to Reasons for Decisions being delivered), the dog Cassius passed away.
In September, 2011 the Tribunal gave a written decision reaffirming the Council’s declaration.
Ms Van Cuylenburg subsequently appealed that decision.
On the 5 April 2012 the appeal was upheld and the Tribunal’s original determination set aside. It was ordered that the matter be remitted for hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal.
The matter was due to be reheard on 31 August 2012. Directions were made on the 1 August, 2012 that the evidence of the original hearing of the matter on 23 and 24 June, 2011 be accepted as the evidence on this hearing.
Directions were also made for the filing of written submissions by each party with Ms Van Cuylenburg to file and serve any written submissions to be relied upon at the hearing by 4.00pm on the 17 August, 2012, and the Council by 4.00pm on the 24 August, 2012.
The Council subsequently filed written submissions but Ms Van Cuylenburg did not.
Late on 22 August 2012 the dog Samson died and the Council was notified of this fact on 24 August 2012.
At the further hearing on the 31 August the parties agreed it was no longer necessary to determine whether or not the decision of the Council should be set aside.
Ms Van Cuylenburg however, wished to proceed with her application for costs against the Council in relation to the original hearing.
In an oral reply, the Council sought costs of preparing for the further hearing noting that submissions had been prepared the day after the dog Samson passed away, but the day before the Council was notified of this fact.
Both parties proposed costs…

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 Van Cuylenburg v Tablelands Regional 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: [2012] QCAT 406
Decision Date: 31 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Susan Van Cuylenburg, who applied to have a decision reviewed by the Tablelands Regional Council. The decision in question was that her dogs were menacing dogs, a classification which led to both dogs being subsequently destroyed. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which is the administrative court in Queensland. The primary issue the court had to address was whether the decision of the council should be set aside, given that both dogs involved in the case were no longer alive. This led to the question of whether the matter had become moot, as there was no practical remedy that could be applied.

The court considered whether it was appropriate to proceed with the review given the dogs were no longer alive and there was no practical benefit to be gained from setting aside the decision. The court concluded that the matter was now moot, and as such, there was no need to determine whether the decision should be set aside. The court further considered the issue of costs, noting that both parties had applied for costs in relation to the proceedings. Given the outcome of the matter, the court dismissed both applications for costs, ordering that each party bear their own costs.

This decision underscores the importance of the mootness doctrine in administrative law, which prevents courts from deciding cases where the issues have become irrelevant or where a decision would have no practical effect. The court’s decision to dismiss the applications for costs was based on the outcome of the matter and the lack of any party having a clear advantage in the proceedings. The final orders of the court were to grant leave to Susan Van Cuylenburg to withdraw the application and to dismiss both parties’ applications for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Susan Van Cuylenburg is granted leave to withdraw the application.

2. Each party’s application for costs is dismissed.

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.