Cylinder Cove Pty Ltd v Townsville City Council & Ors [2023] QPEC 11
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Cylinder Cove Pty Ltd v Townsville City Council & Another
[2023] QPEC 11
PARTIES: CYLINDER COVE PTY LTD
(Appellants)
v
TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL
(Respondents)
and
STRATIS MONOLIS
(Co-Respondents)
and
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT,
INFRASTRUCTURE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND PLANNING
(Co-Respondents by election)
FILE NO/S: 1837/2022
DIVISION: Planning and Environment Court
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING
COURT:
Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 24 March 2023
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 24 March 2023
JUDGE: Rackemann DCJ
ORDER: The time for the Chief Executive, Department of State
Development, Infrastructure, Local Government, and
Planning (Chief Executive) to file and serve a Notice of
Election under rule 15(2) of the Planning and Environment
Court Rules 2018 (Qld) (PEC Rules) be extended to 22
March 2023.
CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND
TERRITORY COURTS – JOINDER OF CAUSES OF
-- 1 of 3 --
2
ACTION AND OF PARTIES – GENERALLY – where the
Chief Executive applied to extend time to join as a party to
the proceeding – where the Court has discretion to extend
time in circumstances where there have been sufficient
grounds demonstrated – where orders were sought for the
proceeding to be joined with another where the Chief
Executive is already a party – where the Chief Executive
initially decided not to elect to join – whether the Court
should exercise its discretion to extend time in the
circumstances.
COUNSEL: W Macintosh for the Appellant.
B Swain for the Respondent.
KW Wylie for the Co-Respondent by election.
SOLICITORS: HWL Ebsworth for the Appellant.
Gadens Lawyers for the Respondent.
HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the Co-Respondent by election.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
[1] This is an application to extent time to allow the Chief Executive to join as a party.
The Court has discretion to extend time in circumstances where there have been
sufficient grounds demonstrated. In this case, the matters at issue in the appeal
concern matters of relevance to the referral jurisdiction of the Chief Executive. It is
in the interests of justice that the Chief Executive be permitted to join, particularly in
circumstances where it is not suggested that there would be any prejudice to the other
parties if the extension time were granted. It may be noted further, that orders are
sought today for this proceeding to be joined with another, where the Chief Executive
is already a party.
[2] The disappointing aspect of the application relates to the explanation for what is a
very late decision by the Chief Executive to wish to join. It appears that the Chief
Executive initially decided not to elect to join, on the basis that there was not a direct
challenge to the conditions which were imposed by reason of the Chief Executive’s
response to the referral. That is a very narrow and inadequate basis upon which to
make a decision, upon whether the right to elect to become a party should be
exercised.
[3] As is said in the affidavit material, and also in the outline of submissions in support
of the application, it is, of course, not uncommon once an appeal is up and running
for changes to proposals or changes to conditions to occur. One would have thought
that in circumstances where the matters in issue concern the subject matter of the
referral agency’s jurisdiction, that the decision on whether to elect to become a party
would focus upon the relevance of those issues and that the referral agency would
elect to respond, in order to assist the Court with evidence as to why it says that the
proposal is acceptable if the conditions it contends for are imposed. One can only
hope that the experience in this case and in others, where it has been in a position of
having to seek the indulgence of the Court as a result of a late change of heart, will
cause the decision-making processes to change. Nevertheless, in this case, for the
reasons I have outlined, it is appropriate to grant the relief sought.
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QPEC/2023/011