AHC Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2010] QPEC 102
1-1
[2010] QPEC 102
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
JUDGE ROBIN QC
P & E Application No 1828 of 2009
AHC LIMITED Applicant
and
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 17/09/2010
ORDER
CATCHWORDS
Circumstances in which respondent Council receives costs
thrown away by late removal of proceeding from the callover
-- 1 of 3 --
1-2 ORDER
HIS HONOUR: The court makes an order in terms of the
initialled draft which I am grateful to the parties for
preparing. It follows a lengthy mention of the matter earlier
in the day which in turn followed mentions in previous months
that have involved a good deal of contention. Reasons which I
gave on the last two occasions when the matter was before me
can be found on the Court website; [2009] QPEC 091; [2010]
QPEC 057.
It was anticipated that a hearing of the originating
application would occur in the October pool. However, the
applicant seeks to have it removed from next Monday's
callover. It is represented by new counsel who sees things
differently from his predecessor and essentially seeks that
the proceeding be approached in a different way, requiring
further disclosure and the like.
At an earlier stage today, I indicated a view that it would be
preferable for the matter to proceed on pleadings or some
equivalent. I was concerned that the applicant's approach of
requiring the Council to formulate issues and the like was
inappropriate.
A similar approach may have been reflected earlier in the
proceeding which concerns whether the Council ought to have
accepted in a way that made it the Council’s future
responsibility a road which the applicant had constructed.
The applicant says that ought to have happened years ago and
the court is in no position to say whether or not the
-- 2 of 3 --
1-3 ORDER
applicant is correct. The Council contends that the
construction of the road is inadequate to the extent that it
ought not to have to take over the road now and, indeed,
probably ought not to have taken it over at any time in the
past.
Various explanations for deficiencies that may exist in the
road have been forthcoming. There are all sorts of inquiries
that might be made.
I have had some concerns that the applicant has been seeking
to place on the Council the possibly burdensome task of
investigations and being first to state a position.
The order the parties have agreed upon after what occurred
earlier this morning grants the applicant its wish of being
spared an early hearing for which, against Council's view with
which I sympathise, it would not have been able to prepare its
best case.
The order protects from the Council in respect of costs that
occur in the future and, indeed, it gets its costs of today
and the last occasion when I reserved them, also costs thrown
away, should there be any, in consequence of the matter not
proceeding in next month's sittings.
Order as per initialled draft.
-----
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QPEC/2010/102