Wilson v Coordinator-General Department of State Development - [2001] QCA 159

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Wilson v Coordinator-General Department of State Development & Anor [2001] QCA 159

PARTIES: GRAHAM MAURICE GILMORE WILSON
(applicant/applicant )
v
ROSS ROLFE, COORDINATOR-GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT
(first respondent/first respondent)
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(second respondent/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 1896 of 2001

SC No 53 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Miscellaneous Application – Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON: 27 April 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 18 April 2001

JUDGES: Thomas and Williams JJA, White J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER: Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – ‘DECISION’ WITHIN ACT’S APPLICATION – GENERALLY – where applicant landowner aggrieved by proposed development project – where applicant sought judicial review of an alleged decision made on behalf of the Coordinator-General – distinction between reviewable decision and administrative steps along the way to a decision - where no decision by Coordinator General under applicable Act State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 - s 4 Judicial Review Act

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 4, s 20 (2) (e), s 23 (b), s 23 (f), s 48 (1), s 48 (5)
State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld), s 29 - s 29 ZA, s 29 (2)
State Development and Public Works Organisation Amendment Act 1999 (Qld)

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, considered
Redland Shire Council v Bushcliff Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 97, considered

COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M D Hinson SC for the first and second respondents

SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Crown Solicitor for the first and second respondents

THE COURT: The applicant, Mr Wilson, sought judicial review of an alleged decision made on behalf of the Coordinator-General. His application was dismissed by Helman J under s 48(1) of the Judicial Review Act, essentially on the ground that the respondents had not made a reviewable decision. The present application is for leave to appeal against that dismissal. Leave is necessary as s 48(5) of the Judicial Review Act provides that no appeal may be brought against such a decision except by leave.

Since at least 1998 a party described as SUDAW Developments Ltd ("SUDAW") expressed interest in a project which includes the possible construction of a rail link for carrying coal from a mine near Brigalow in the Surat Basin to the Tarong Power Station, south-east of Kingaroy. The planning of such a project would involve coordinated organisation of public works, and the successful development of such a project would necessitate the involvement not only of particular local authorities and governmental agencies but also of the Coordinator-General under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971. The applicant is a landholder through whose land a proposed rail link would pass. The "decision" which the applicant sought to invalidate by means of judicial review was contained in a letter written…

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 Wilson v Coordinator-General Department of State Development 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: [2001] QCA 159
Decision Date: 27 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wilson v Coordinator-General Department of State Development, the applicant, a landowner, sought judicial review of an alleged decision made by the Coordinator-General that was said to impact on their property. The applicant argued that the Coordinator-General had made a reviewable decision under the Judicial Review Act. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was tasked with determining whether the Coordinator-General had indeed made a reviewable decision and if the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review it.

The key legal issues before the CAT were whether the Coordinator-General had made a decision that was subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Act, and if the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review any such decision. The applicant argued that the Coordinator-General had made a decision to allow a development project, which was reviewable under the Act. The Coordinator-General, on the other hand, contended that no such decision had been made and that any actions taken were merely administrative steps leading up to a decision, rather than the decision itself.

The CAT held that the Coordinator-General had not made a reviewable decision under the Judicial Review Act. The Tribunal found that the actions taken by the Coordinator-General were administrative steps along the way to a decision, rather than the decision itself. As such, the CAT did not have jurisdiction to review any such decision. The CAT concluded that the application for judicial review was not valid as there was no decision by the Coordinator-General that could be reviewed under the Act.

The CAT dismissed the application for leave to appeal, with costs awarded against the applicant. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Coordinator-General had made a reviewable decision and that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review any such decision. The CAT emphasised the importance of distinguishing between a reviewable decision and administrative steps leading up to a decision, in order to determine whether judicial review is available under the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

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.

CITATION:	Wilson v Coordinator-General Department of State Development & Anor [2001] QCA 159
PARTIES:	GRAHAM MAURICE GILMORE WILSON (applicant/applicant ) v ROSS ROLFE, COORDINATOR-GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT (first respondent/first respondent) THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (second respondent/second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 1896 of 2001 SC No 53 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Miscellaneous Application – Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	27 April 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 April 2001
JUDGES:	Thomas and Williams JJA, White J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – ‘DECISION’ WITHIN ACT’S APPLICATION – GENERALLY – where applicant landowner aggrieved by proposed development project – where applicant sought judicial review of an alleged decision made on behalf of the Coordinator-General – distinction between reviewable decision and administrative steps along the way to a decision - where no decision by Coordinator General under applicable Act State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 - s 4 Judicial Review Act Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 4, s 20 (2) (e), s 23 (b), s 23 (f), s 48 (1), s 48 (5) State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld), s 29 - s 29 ZA, s 29 (2) State Development and Public Works Organisation Amendment Act 1999 (Qld) Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, considered Redland Shire Council v Bushcliff Pty Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 97, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M D Hinson SC for the first and second respondents
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Crown Solicitor for the first and second respondents