Court of Appeal (Qld)|2002-12-13|Before: McMurdo P, Williams JA and Atkinson JJoint reasons, for judgment of McMurdo P and Atkinson J, separate reasons of Williams JA, concurring as to the orders made
McMurdo P, Williams JA and Atkinson JJoint reasons, for judgment of McMurdo P and Atkinson J, separate reasons of Williams JA, concurring as to the orders made
Catchwords
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES –
INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR
CASES –
OTHER MATTERS – COSTSPROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES –INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULARCASES –OTHER MATTERS – COSTSPROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTINGFROM THE GENERAL RULE – CONDUCT OF PARTIES – MISCONDUCT ETC –IN PROCEEDINGS– VEXATIOUS PROCESS AND ISSUES - where order dismissingappellant’s application for costs under s 7.6(1A)(a) Local Government(P&E) Act 1990 (Qld) – where long history of litigation concerningroad constructed by the first respondent developer and approved bythe secondrespondent council adjacent to the appellant’s property – wheredeclarations sought by the appellant thatthe first respondent had committedoffences under the Local Government (P&E) Act 1990 (Qld) and that theroad be removed – where first and second respondent resisted declarations– where appellantlargely successful – whether conduct of the firstand second respondents was frivolous or vexatious – whether primary
judge
erred in dismissing application for costs APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –
APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where costs order made regarding six
day hearing in Planning
& Environment Court – where order should not
be interfered with – where appellant entitled to costs of remaining
appearances in proceedings Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s
6.1.39Local Government (Planning & Environment) Act 1990 (Qld), s
7.4(3), s 7.6(1A)(a)Begley v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Ors
[1995] QPLR 228, considered Hudson Surveys Pty Ltd v Council of the
City of Hervey Bay [1992] QPLR 160, referred to Oceanic Sunline
Special Shipping Company Inc v Fay [1988] HCA 32
(1988) 165 CLR 197, considered
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 55
(1990) 171 CLR 538, referred
to
Judgment (7 paragraphs)
[1]
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW - PARTICULAR CASES - OTHER MATTERS - COSTS
[2]
PROCEDURE - COSTS - DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE - CONDUCT OF PARTIES - MISCONDUCT ETC - IN PROCEEDINGS - VEXATIOUS PROCESS AND ISSUES - where order dismissing appellant's application for costs under s 7.6(1A)(a) Local Government (P&E) Act 1990 (Qld) - where long history of litigation concerning road constructed by the first respondent developer and approved by the second respondent council adjacent to the appellant's property - where declarations sought by the appellant that the first respondent had committed offences under the Local Government (P&E) Act 1990 (Qld) and that the road be removed - where first and second respondent resisted declarations - where appellant largely successful - whether conduct of the first and second respondents was frivolous or vexatious - whether primary judge erred in dismissing application for costs
[3]
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where costs order made regarding six day hearing in Planning & Environment Court - where order should not be interfered with - where appellant entitled to costs of remaining appearances in proceedings
[4]
Local Government (Planning & Environment) Act 1990 (Qld), s 7.4(3), s 7.6(1A)(a)
[5]
Begley v Pine Rivers Shire Council & Ors[1995] QPLR 228, considered
[6]
Hudson Surveys Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Hervey Bay[1992] QPLR 160, referred to