Dawson v Eacham Shire Council [1993] QPEC 55

) IN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT HELD AT CAIRNS QUEENSLAND P. & E. Appeal No. 20 of 1990 BETWEEN: A.W. DAWSON EACHAM SHIRE COUNCIL ORDER FOR COSTS - T.J. QUIRK, D.C.J. Appellant Respondent ~ a?3- 7- '73. In this matter the appellant was successful in an appeal which was heard at Cairns in May of last year. Subsequently he ) has made a written approach to me asking that I make an order for costs in his favour. He was not legally represented and the irregularity of his method of approach is in no way held against him. At my direction, he was advised that such an application should ordinarily be made in open Court in the presence of all parties but to avoid added expense and inconvenience to both the respondent Planning Authority and himself I was prepared ( if both parties agreed) to entertain written submissions on the matter. These have been submitted to me under cover of a letter from the respondent's solicitors dated 21st June, 1993 and I will make my ruling on the basis of these submissions and evidence given at the hearing of the appeal. As I may have observed in the course of the hearing there was, in this appeal, and undercurrent of what appeared to be ill- -- 1 of 2 -- ,1 2 will existing between the appellant and certain elected members of the Council. However, by reason of the nature of these appeals, a determination must be based upon relevant evidence given in the course of the hearing and proper Town Planning considerations. Extraneous matters are to be (and were in this case) excluded. In the end result the Court decided, because of unusual ) circumstances pertaining to this land, that a discretion to depart from certain subdivisional standards found in the Town Planning Scheme should be exercised in favour of the appellant. It is difficult to criticise the respondent Planning Authority for seeking to adhere to the standards as indeed the advice of its Town Planning officer suggested it should. ) The Court's power to make an order for costs is limited by the provisions of s. 7.6(1)(b) of the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act and if the matters which are specified as being a justification for an award of costs are examined, it is clear that none of them could be said to apply to this appeal. I might add that even if I had a wider discretion (such as existed previously) in the matter, I would decline to make an order for costs in this appeal. The application for costs is refused. -- 2 of 2 --