Carello & Ors v Johnstone Shire Council [2002] QSC 439
State Reporting Bureau
pooa] qsC43c\
Queensland Government
Department of Justice and Attorney-General
Transcript of Proceedings
REVISED COPTS : -r
State Repor-
Dated'S / /( j c3 OCQ
Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority
of the Director, State Reporting Bureau.
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JONES J
No S160 of 2001
ANDREW CARELLO,
LUIGINA PAULINA CARELLO
KATHRYN DIANE BLANCKENSEE and
JOHN RAY BLANCKENSEE Applicants/Plaintiffs
and
THE COUNCIL OF THE SHIRE OF JOHNSTONE Respondent/Defendant
CAIRNS
..DATE 11/11/2002
JUDGMENT
WARNING : The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal
jffence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for
heir protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those
■.ategories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.1
1
lh Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 Fax: (07) 3247 5532
-- 1 of 3 --
11112002 D.l T5/DK M/T CNS1/2002 (Jones J)
HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the plaintiff to have
the action set down for trial, or in the alternative, an order
for mediation pursuant to rule 320 of the Uniform Civil
Procedure Rules.
The respondent opposes the matter being set down for trial on
the basis that it still requires to undertake studies
preparatory to obtaining an expert engineering report. The
action has been on foot for over 12 months. In that time
expert reports obtained by the applicant have been duly passed
on to the respondent. The applicant complains that the
respondent has been inactive in obtaining reports for itself.
Mr Jonsson, who appeared for the respondent before me, both in
submissions and in reliance on the material in his affidavit,
satisfies me that the respondent has not being entirely
inactive, but that it has in the course of that 12 months been
in negotiations with a third party with a view to resolving
questions of liability which might exist between it and a
third party based on possible liability to the applicants.
There is still a number of matters to be resolved obviously,
but the starting point is, of course, having expert opinion
upon which the parties are prepared to rely. The question
really comes down to how long the respondent should have to
obtain its expert reports. The main report is that of a
hydrological engineer. His report might depend on further
flood plain modelling, which I am informed will take some time
to undertake.
2
JUDGMENT
-- 2 of 3 --
11112002 D.l T5/DK M/T CNSl/2002 (Jones J)
1
It seems to me, however, that given the past delays and given
also the fact that quite a lot of preparatory work has been
done, upon which the applicant's engineers have expressed
their opinions that the engineer to be retained on behalf of 10
the respondent should be able to prepare a report within a
period of approximately two months. I propose to order that
the engineering reports to be relied upon by the respondent,
be provided to the applicant on or before the 20th of January,
2003. This will allow the opportunity for the respondent's 20
expert reports to be considered by the applicant' s experts
before the matter comes before me again on 31 January 2003.
I would expect that there would be some consultation between
engineers, if they are not in agreement, to try to limit the 30
areas of dispute. If that has not occurred then I will give
consideration to directing experts to confer as a prelude to
the making of an order for mediation. These matters can be
further reviewed when the case is listed again on the 31st of
January 2003, the date to which I now adjourn the application. 40
Costs of and incidental to this hearing today will be
reserved.
50
3
JUDGMENT
60
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QSC/2002/439