Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Ltd v Airservices Australia & Anor [No 4] [2025] QSC 291

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Ltd v Airservices Australia & Anor [No 4] [2025] QSC 291 PARTIES: BRISBANE AIRPORT CORPORATION PTY LTD ACN 076 870 650 (plaintiff) v AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA (first defendant) AND AIG AUSTRAIA LIMITED (FORMERLY CHARTIS INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED) ACN 004 727 753 (second defendant) FILE NO/S: SC No 11343 of 2017 DIVISION: Trial PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 6 November 2025 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers JUDGE: Freeburn J ORDER: Orders be made in accordance with the plaintiff’s draft orders. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – GENERALLY – FORM OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER – where the court heard two interlocutory applications – where the court published reasons – where the court directed that the parties submit a draft order which reflects both some agreed directions and the decisions in the reasons – where the parties have submitted competing draft orders – where there are two broad areas of disagreement – where one area of disagreement is in relation to the plaintiff’s expert evidence in reply – where the second area of disagreement is in relation to the plaintiff’s ‘top-up’ evidence – whether the plaintiff’s or first defendant’s draft orders should be adopted Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Ltd v Airservices Australia & Anor [No 3] [2025] QSC 234, cited -- 1 of 3 -- 2 COUNSEL: L Kelly KC, with B O’Brien, A Psaltis and J Menzies, for the plaintiff B O’Donnell KC, with A Low and C Stackpoole, for the first defendant V Chalmers for the second defendant SOLICITORS: Clayton Utz for the plaintiff Maddocks for the first defendant HWL Ebsworth for the second defendant Introduction [1] On 11 and 12 September 2025, I heard two interlocutory applications in this proceeding. On 15 September 2025, I published my reasons and directed that the parties submit a draft order that reflects both the agreed directions (as the parties had agreed to some issues) and the decisions recorded in the reasons.1 [2] The parties have been unable to agree on a draft order that reflects both the agreed directions, and the decisions recorded in the reasons. The parties have submitted competing draft orders. The parties are content for the court to make its decision ‘on the papers’ and have supplied written submissions. [3] There are two broad areas of disagreement. Expert Evidence in Reply [4] The first area of disagreement of concerns Brisbane Airport Corporation’s (‘BAC’) expert evidence in reply. The issue is covered in paragraphs 36 to 47 in the reasons delivered on 15 September 2025 under the sub-heading ‘Timetabling Dispute 2’.2 [5] The end point of that discussion was that I allowed the staggered approach in Airservices Australia’s (‘ASA’) proposed orders. As paragraph 47 makes clear, the intention is that both sides’ evidence is to be completed by 30 April 2026. [6] For that reason, orders will be made in accordance with paragraphs 16 and 17 of the plaintiff’s draft. The ‘Top-Up’ Evidence [7] The second area of disagreement concerns BAC’s ‘top-up’ evidence. The discussion is in paragraphs 32 to 54 of the reasons delivered on 15 September 2025 under the sub-heading “The ‘Top-Up’ Evidence”.3 [8] The evident intention of that reasoning is that it is necessary for ASA and the court to see that ‘top-up’ evidence so that the position and any possible prejudice can be assessed. The idea is that the ‘top-up’ evidence be delivered, assessed and then the extent of, and timing of, responsive evidence can be assessed. 1 Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Ltd v Airservices Australia & Anor [No 3] [2025] QSC 234. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [9] For that reason, orders should be made in accordance with paragraphs 7 to 10 of the plaintiff’s draft. [10] The other aspects covered in the plaintiff’s draft order are not in issue. -- 3 of 3 --