Copley v Beaudesert Shire Council [1993] QPEC 68

,!\"<'- ·f,.,rt~~ State ReportinkBure;J_u TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must riot be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau.) • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT JUDGE Row· P & E No 239 of 1993 GREGORY CHARLES COPLEY and BEAUDESERT SHIRE COUNCIL and XYZ TIMESHARE CORPORATION PTY LTD ACN 010 262576 BRISBANE .. DATE 23/08/93 ORDER REVISE:) COPiG:.S lS5US:) State Repcrtfng t:h,c.::u Date •J .l <-; / c, -~ Appellant Respondent Respondent by election -- 1 of 5 -- 230893 T 1/RJD M/T 4014/93 (Row DCJ) HIS HONOUR: The application as made by the respondent by election is made p~rsuant, to rule 36 of the rules of the Local Government Court. There is nothing in the material filed on behalf of the appellant which establishes any basis whereby that application should be dismissed. I dismiss the application by the appellant to dismiss the application for directions. HIS HONOUR: In this application the r~~p9ndent seeks o~ders. that paragraphs (iv), (v), (vi) and part of paragraph (iii) commencing with the words, "and which would have the potential ... " to the end of paragraph (iii) be struck out. The Planning ahd Environment Court is a statutory Court 10 20 30 created by the Local Government (Planning and.Eri~ironment) Act -- 1990 as amended. The Court has the powers given to it under the statute. The preceding statute was considered in cases such as Cassey v. Hervey Bay Town Council (1979) QPLR _ page 144 or (1979) 39 LGRA page 68 and The Queen v. Brisbane City Council ex parte Read (1986) 2 QdR page 22, which are indicative that where the decision of the local authority is attacked this Court has no jurisdiction. If a party wishes to attack the validity or otherwise of a decision of the local authority, jurisdiction may be exercised by another Court. 2 40 50 60 -- 2 of 5 -- ,. 230893 T 1/RJD M/T 4014/93 (Row DCJ) On the material before me I am satisfied that paragraphs (iv), (v) and (vi) are outside the power of the Court to consider on the hearing of the appeal and that that part of paragraph (iii) above referred to is irrelevant to a consideration of the appeal. I therefore order that paragraphs (iv), (v) and (vi) and that part of paragraph (iii) be struck out. HIS HONOUR: In this part of the application the respondent seeks further and better particulars of certain matters contained in paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal is drawn in very general terms and I am· satisfied that further and better particulars are required for the purpose of identifying the issues which are raised by the notice. o:f appEsel--so--that the issues may. be properly before the Court-on the hearin9~~f._the appeal. I order in terms of paragrap~ 2 of Exhibit A. HIS HONOUR: In this matter the respondent seeks an order that further and better particulars be given within seven days from the date hereof. The notice of appeal was filed on 30 July 1993. The allegations are raised by the appellant in the notice of appeal presumably upon facts and information then available to him for the purpose of preparing his notice 3 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 3 of 5 -- 230893 T 1/RJD M/T 4014/93 (Row DCJ) of appeal. The appeal before the Court is an objector appeal which the Court is statutory bound to hear and determine within a limited time. Having regard to the nature of the particulars that are sought and the matters alleged in the notice of appeal, I consider seven days is ample time within which to provide the further and better particulars. I order that such particulars be provided by 4 p.m. on 30 August 1993. HIS HONOUR: The question of the dates for the hearing and determination of the appeal was debated. The Court is available for four days commencing 28 September 1993. The _appellant has certain business commitments which he wishes to --<>;:~- ... ~- ~· .--,-~ --·.- ._ -··•--· carry out and says those dates would be inconvenient. At the present time the Court has available further dates~ in particular the week commencing 25 October and other dates in November. Having regard to the statutory obligation imposed on the Court to hear and determine an objector appeal within a limited time and giving consideration to the interests of the appellant, I set the appeal down for hearing for four days commencing Monday, 25 October 1993 at Brisbane. 4 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 4 of 5 -- 230893 T 1/RJD M/T 4014/93 (Row DCJ) 1 HIS HONOUR: I make a directio~ that by 4 p.m._on 2~August 1993 that· the respondent furnish to the solicitors f6r the respondent by e.lection a .copy.of the ·object.ion of the a·ppeu.lan_t_._with supporting documents. '( HIS HONOUR: I adjourn the hearing of the application for directions to a date to be fixed. I reserve the costs of today to be taxed. HIS HONOUR: Order as per draft initialled by me and placed with the papers. 5 10 20 30 _._ ·-· -°"~ -~- - - - • ·- _ .. - ,. - - - 40 50 60 -- 5 of 5 --