QLDQCA

Brisbane City Council v Cunningham & Anor [2001] QCA 294

[2001] QCA 294

Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-07-27|Before: McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Helman JSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

View original source

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Court of Appeal (Qld)

Decision date

2001-07-27

Before

McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Helman JSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

Catchwords

LOCAL GOVERNMENT – TOWN PLANNING – CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF
COUNCILS (DEVELOPMENT AND USE APPLICATIONS) – APPLICATIONS
–
PLANNING PROPOSALS – where the club made two applications in relation to

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

LOCAL GOVERNMENT – TOWN PLANNING – CONSENT AND APPROVAL OFCOUNCILS (DEVELOPMENT AND USE APPLICATIONS) – APPLICATIONS–PLANNING PROPOSALS – where the club made two applications in relation toland leased from the council – wherethe only point of overlap was inrelation to a car park area – whether the applications were part of anoverall scheme –whether there should have been a single application inrespect of both applications - whether the rule against ‘piecemeal’applications according to the principle in Pioneer Concrete should havebeen applied - where the applications were for separate and different uses– Pioneer does not require two separate and distinct uses becombined in one applicationLOCAL GOVERNMENT – TOWN PLANNING– APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS– whereno reason to order the respondent Mr Cunningham to pay costs ofproceedings below - s 4.1.23(2)(b) Integrated Planning Act 1997(Qld)Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 4.1.23(2), s 4.1.23(2)

Brisbane City Council v Cunningham & Anor [2001] QCA 294

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)