Van der Est v Queensland Rail Limited

Case [2017] QLC 55

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Van der Est & Anor v Queensland Rail Limited [2017] QLC 55
PARTIES: Gordon William Van der Est
and
Donella Maree Van der Est
(applicants)
v
Queensland Rail Limited ACN 132 181 090
(respondent)
FILE NO: TIA1162-16
DIVISION: General division
PROCEEDING: Application to strike out proceeding; Application to re-open hearing of application to strike out proceeding.
DELIVERED ON: 20 November 2017
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: 20 July, 30 August and 15 November 2017
HEARD AT: Brisbane
PRESIDENT: FY Kingham
ORDERS:

The matter is listed for review on a date to be fixed by

the Registrar after consultation with the parties.
CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JURISDICTION – where the landowners brought proceedings against Queensland Rail under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 – whether the Land Court has jurisdiction under s 260 of the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 to decide the landowners claim for damages – whether the Court has the powers conferred on it by s 7A of the Land Court Act 2000

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS –PROCEEDINGS – STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – whether the landowners’ land is caught by the term neighbouring land under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 – whether the literal interpretation of “next to” could be displaced – where the history of the provision assisted in ascertaining its meaning – where the beneficial purpose of the provision and the mischief it was intended to address was considered – where the literal interpretation was displaced

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – HEARING – Application to re-open – where after hearing and before judgment delivered the applicants applied to re-open the hearing – where it was found not to be in the interests of justice to grant the application.

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 14A(1), s 14C
Evidence Act 1977 s 44
Land Act 1994 sch 6
Land Court Act 2000 s 5(1), s 5(2), s 7A

Local Government Act 2009 s 251

Railway Act 1863 27 Vic c 8 s 94

Railways Act 1914 s 73

Transport Infrastructure Act (Railways) Act 1991 s 46

Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 s 2(2)(d)(ii), s 106(b)(iii), s 260, s 260(1)(b), s 260(2)(c), s 260(5), sch 6 def of rail transport infrastructure (a) & (b)
Transport Infrastructure Amendment (Rail) Act 1995 s 11

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27, applied
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, applied
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297, applied
EB v CT (no 2) [2008] QSC 306, applied
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55, applied
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, applied
Reid v Brett [2005] VSC 18, aplied
Zappala Family Company Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2014] A 147, applied
APPEARANCES: GJ Gibson QC and P Hackett of Counsel, instructed by H. Drakos &…

Continue reading Van der Est v Queensland Rail Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Van der Est v Queensland Rail Limited [2017] QLC 55
Case
[2017] QLC 55
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Van der Est v Queensland Rail Limited, the landowners initiated proceedings against Queensland Rail under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, seeking damages for alleged impacts on their land. The dispute centred on whether the Land Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim, specifically under section 260 of the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, and whether the Court possessed the necessary powers under section 7A of the Land Court Act 2000. Additionally, the court was tasked with interpreting the term "neighbouring land" within the context of the Act, particularly whether the literal meaning of "next to" could be displaced.

The court meticulously examined the statutory language and historical context of the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 to ascertain the meaning of "neighbouring land." It considered the beneficial purpose of the provision and the specific mischief it aimed to address, leading to the conclusion that the literal interpretation of "next to" could indeed be displaced. The court’s approach involved a detailed analysis of legislative intent, ensuring that the interpretation aligned with the broader objectives of the Act.

Following the hearing, the applicants sought to reopen the proceedings, which the court found to be not in the interests of justice. Consequently, the application was denied, and the matter was listed for review. The court's decision underscored the importance of a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, particularly in contexts where the literal meaning might not align with legislative intent.

The court ordered the matter to be listed for review, with the specific date to be determined by the Registrar after consultation with the parties. This decision ensures that the case can be revisited to address any further legal or factual developments, maintaining the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

The matter is listed for review on a date to be fixed by

the Registrar after consultation with the parties.

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.