Ballymont Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council [2001] QCA 371
[2001] QCA 371
COURT OF APPEAL
McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA
WHITE J
No 6697 of 2001
BALLYMONT PTY LTD ACN 010 212 085
AND ROBERT LEWIS SIMMONS Applicants (Appellants)
and
IPSWICH CITY COUNCIL First Respondent (Respondent)
and
MARK STOCKWELL Second Respondent (First Co-Respondent)
and
STOCKWELL BUILDING
& DEVELOPMENT Third Respondent (Second Co-Respondent)
and
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Third Co-Respondent)
BRISBANE
..DATE 10/09/2001
JUDGMENT
-- 1 of 3 --
10092001 T19/JAP22 M/T COA 212/2001
2 JUDGMENT
McPHERSON JA: By a majority the Court will grant leave to
appeal in this case. I ask Mr Justice Thomas to state the
grounds on which that leave is granted.
THOMAS JA: The grounds will be those which are contained in
the draft notice of appeal which is exhibited to Mr
Goodfellow's affidavit. There are seven grounds in that
notice. I have some reservation about number five but not
having the benefit of any record think it preferable that all
the grounds which the applicant seeks to raise be open to be
brought in the Court of Appeal in due course.
The primary error of law which I think emerges in the reasons
for judgment appears in a statement that is made in paragraph
17 of the reasons. I do not propose to give a greater
excursus of the arguments presented by Mr Gore. It seems to
me that there is an arguable case of an error or errors in law
having occurred and accordingly I think leave should be
granted.
WHITE J: Yes, I agree with Justice Thomas.
McPHERSON JA: Leave is granted accordingly. Costs will be
costs in the appeal.
MR HAYDON: Is it possible to seek an expedition of the
hearing of the appeal because it is-----
McPHERSON JA: Not that I am aware of. You can try the
-- 2 of 3 --
10092001 T19/JAP22 M/T COA 212/2001
3 JUDGMENT
Registrar. I do not get paid for that part of it.
MR HAYDON: I was not entirely sure as to the scope of the
appeal because paragraph 6 and 7 were not argued and were
abandoned and correspondence between the Crown law and my
learned friend's instructing solicitors and-----
MR GORE: That is so, your Honour. There is no debate about
that.
THOMAS JA: In that case, the grounds should be limited to one
to five.
MR HAYDON: Yes, your Honour.
McPHERSON JA: Leave will be limited to grounds one to five.
-----
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QCA/2001/371