© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2002] QCA 120
Court of Appeal (Qld)
2002-04-12
McPherson and Williams JJA and Byrne JSeparate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
Original judgment source is linked above.
STATUTES - BY-LAWS AND REGULATIONS - VALIDITY - REPUGNANCY - IN GENERAL - REPUGNANCY TO AUTHORIZING STATUTE - whether a law prohibiting the removal of and forcing the replacement of trees on private property is valid - where s 36 (3) of the City of Brisbane Act 1924 was amended to include the words "the environment".
STATUTES - BY-LAWS AND REGULATIONS - VALIDITY - UNREASONABLENESS - PARTICULAR CASES - where the by-law could be read to be beyond the power of the organisation - whether the legislation's validity can be tested in that way.
STATUTES - BY-LAWS AND REGULATIONS - VALIDITY - VAGUENESS AND UNCERTAINTINY - IN GENERAL - where the word "any" was used - whether the order made under the by-law exceeded the limits of the by-law - where the subject of an order is required to take action to the satisfaction of the local authority - where the provision suffers from fatal uncertainty.
STATUTES - BY-LAWS AND REGULATIONS - VALIDITY - REPUGNANCY - IN GENERAL - REPUGNANCY TO GENERAL LAW - where a by-law is inconsistent with general or common law - whether the result is an invalid by-law.
Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel [1920] UKHL 1; [1920] AC 508, considered
C J Burland Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Meat Industry Board [1968] HCA 77; (1968) 120 CLR 400, distinguished
Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; (1923) 33 CLR 1, considered
Commonwealth v Tasmania (Dam Case) [1983] HCA 21; (1983) 158 CLR 1, considered
Cullis v Ahern [1914] HCA 59; (1914) 18 CLR 540, applied
Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (2001) 75 ALJR 501, applied
Fejo v Northern Territory of Australia [1998] HCA 58; (1998) 195 CLR 96
Fraser v Hemming [1911] St R Qd 139, applied
Ibralebbe v The Queen [1964] AC 900, considered
Jerusalem Jaffa District Governor v Suleiman Murra [1926] AC 321, applied
King Gee Clothing Co Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1945] HCA 23; (1945) 71 CLR 184, considered
Kwiksnax Mobile Industrial & General Caterers Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [1994] 1 Qd R 291, distinguished
London County Council v James [1912] 2 KB 504 considered
Lynch & Standon v Brisbane City Council [1961] HCA 19; (1961) 104 CLR 353, considered
Mitchell v Lemm (1908) 3 HKLR 75, considered
R v District Court of the Northern District of Queensland; Ex parte Thompson [1968] HCA 48; (1968) 118 CLR 488, applied
Randwick Municipal Council v Rutledge [1959] HCA 63; (1959) 102 CLR 54, 71 considered
Riel v R; Ex parte Riel (1885) 10 App Cas 675, applied
Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King [1988] HCA 55; (1988) 166 CLR 1, considered
Widgee Shire Council v Bonney [1907] HCA 11; (1907) 4 CLR 977, applied
Williams v Melbourne Corporation [1933] HCA 56; (1933) 49 CLR 142, applied
Brisbane City Council Legal Practice for the respondent
Bone
Mothershaw [2002] QCA 120
(1968) 120 CLR 400
(1923) 33 CLR 1
(1983) 158 CLR 1
(1914) 18 CLR 540
(2001) 75 ALJR 501
(1998) 195 CLR 96
(1945) 71 CLR 184
(1961) 104 CLR 353
(1968) 118 CLR 488
(1959) 102 CLR 54
(1988) 166 CLR 1
(1907) 4 CLR 977
(1933) 49 CLR 142