Vidler v Fraser Coast Regional Council (No 2)

[2011] QPEC 155

[2011] QPEC 155

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

JUDGE ROBIN QC

P & E Appeal No 1466 of 2010

BRAITH MURRAY VIDLER	Appellants
and
FRASER COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL
and
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS	Respondents

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/12/2011

..DAY 1

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 990

Court convened to make formal orders disposing of a developer's appeal against refusal of his development application on the basis Council after its decision came to the view that the application was not a properly made one - court took the same view - subject to the appellant's failing to apply within a short time after notice that his solicitors cease to act for him, notwithstanding that usual steps had not been taken - ordered accordingly

HIS HONOUR:  It is further ordered that Mullins Lawyers cease to be the appellant's lawyers as from 13 January 2012 unless within that time the appellant has filed and served an application returnable on 24 January 2012 seeking to have this part of the order set aside.  Direct that those lawyers forthwith notify the appellant of the terms of this order.

So it's Mr Connor's order with those additional amendments on the bottom.

...

HIS HONOUR:  This is some end of year housekeeping, tidying up Mr Vidler's appeal which was heard last February and determined in accordance with reasons published on the 1st of March unfavourably to him.  The Council succeeded in establishing the technical point that Mr Vidler's development application which the Council declined to grant in any event was not a properly made application. 

The Council wants to have the matter resolved, which is appropriately done by Mr Connor's proposed order containing a declaration of the deficiency of the development application and dismissing the appeal, also setting aside the Council's decision notice of the 19th of April 2010.

Mr Dufty represented the appellant this morning.  Communications sent to his address, which coincides with the one used in dealings with the Council, have failed to elicit any instructions from Mr Vidler as to the manner in which the appeal might be formally concluded.  Mr Connor's suggestions are appropriate. 

The order has added to it a provision that Mr Dufty's firm cease to be the appellant's lawyers as from the 13th of January next year unless within that time Mr Vidler has filed and served an application returnable on the 24th of January 2012, which happens to be a day when I expect to be in court, seeking to have this particular part of the order set aside and that's, of course, on the basis that he be informed forthwith in terms of what's been ordered today.

There's a certain amount of cutting corners given that Mr Dufty hasn't filed any application seeking leave to withdraw under rule 990 of the UCPR, which would apply, or filed any application in that regard, but it seemed a pointless production of trouble and costs to proceed in a different way in the particular circumstances.

Order as per initialled draft.

...

-----