CPT Manager Ltd v Central Highlands Regional Council [2009] QPEC 75 (2010) 174 LGERA 412
[2009] QPEC 75
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
JUDGE ROBIN QC
P & E Appeal No 2840 of 2008
CPT MANAGER LIMITED (ACN 054 494 307) Appellant
and
CENTRAL HIGHLANDS REGIONAL COUNCIL
and
CHIEF EXECUTIVE,
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS
and
LASCORP DEVELOPMENT GROUP AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD
Respondent
Co-Respondent
Co-Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 06/08/2009
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: Appeal directed to remain on callover for next
sittings notwithstanding that finalisation of experts' reports
would not occur until after the callover - failure of a
hearing to eventuate was unlikely to deprive other litigants
of hearing dates
1-1
-- 1 of 3 --
1-2 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
HIS HONOUR: This matter is on the callover to be held on the
13th of August. It's anticipated that a five day hearing will
be necessary and perhaps provision of an additional day for a
site visit to Emerald.
Exhibit 1 is a copy of the report resulting from a meeting of
traffic experts which was held a day late in terms of the
Court's directions on the 22nd of July 2009. That identifies
six or seven matters which the traffic experts considered
required looking into. Their report is very much a
provisional one. If and when the experts reach consensus on
more matters, that may have a flow-on effect so far as the
reporting of other experts is concerned, town planners in
particular.
The appeal is all about a shopping centre in Emerald which the
council has approved. The appellant is a commercial rival.
Mr Johnson, representing it, has concerns that embarrassment
in the future flowing from the inability of the parties to get
the appeal ready for hearing, in particular in respect of the
traffic aspect, may eventuate if the matter retains its place
at the callover and it is set down. He has informed the Court
that there are difficulties of his availability and his
leader's if, as the other parties suggest, hearing dates late
in the September sittings are being contemplated.
It's not until a week or more after the callover that the
time-table propounded by the other parties for getting the
expert evidence in order would be complied with and even then
-- 2 of 3 --
1-3 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
it may be that things have got out of order - requiring the
town planners to come up with supplementary reports.
In ordinary conditions the Court would not be happy to have
this appeal retain its place on the callover because the
failure of the matter to be ready to be heard on the set dates
would mean there was idle Court time and that other litigants
lost an opportunity for a hearing. As things presently stand,
the pressure for hearing dates in the sittings is pretty well
non-existent. Day after day the judges hearing reviews are
taking matters out of particular pools and assigning them to
pools months ahead.
I can't speak for the judge at the callover who may well be
influenced by considerations such as availability of counsel,
and the other aspects of uncertainty I've referred to, but it
seems to me that a suitable course is to leave the matter on
the callover list. The callover judge can see how things
stand and determine whether the risk that the parties might
not be ready for hearing on the dates contemplated is worth
taking.
I make an order in terms of the draft which Mr Nicolaides
handed up, I'll initial that. I'll return to Mr Johnson the
draft that he proposed.
-----
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QPEC/2009/075