Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Springfield Land Corporation Pty Limited v Cherish Enterprises Pty Ltd

 

[2018] QCA 323

 

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

 

CITATION:

Springfield Land Corporation Pty Limited v Cherish Enterprises Pty Ltd & Anor [2018] QCA 323

PARTIES:

SPRINGFIELD LAND CORPORATION PTY LIMITED
ACN 055 714 531
(applicant)
v
CHERISH ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
ACN 052 055 811
(first respondent)
IPSWICH CITY COUNCIL
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8535 of 2017

P & E Appeal No 2948 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Sustainable Planning Act – Further Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court at Brisbane – [2017] QPEC 38 (Kefford DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

20 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Burns J

ORDERS:

  1. The first respondent is to pay 50 per cent of the appellant’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.
  2. The first respondent and the appellant are each to pay 50 per cent of the second respondent’s costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – where the appellant was granted leave to appeal and the appeal was allowed in part – where the appellant succeeded on one of the two principal issues in the appeal, but failed on the other – whether the first respondent should be ordered to pay any of the appellant’s costs

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – where the second respondent was successful in its limited resistance to the appeal and wholly successful in its cross-appeal – whether the appellant and/or the first respondent should be ordered to pay any of the second respondent’s costs

Springfield Land Corporation Pty Limited v Cherish Enterprises Pty Ltd & Anor [2018] QCA 266, related

COUNSEL:

J M Horton QC, with D M Favell, for the applicant

R Litster QC, with S Fynes-Clinton, for the first respondent

M F Johnston, with J G Lyons, for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

MinterEllison for the applicant

Clinton Mohr Lawyers for the first respondent

Colin Biggers & Paisley for the second respondent

  1. [1]
    FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the orders proposed by his Honour.
  2. [2]
    GOTTERSON JA: Reasons for judgment were delivered in this matter on 12 October 2018.  Provision was made in the orders for the parties to make brief written submissions on costs which they have done.
  3. [3]
    The appellant, Springfield Land Corporation Pty Ltd (“Springfield”), obtained a measure of success in the appeal.  It was granted leave to appeal and the appeal was allowed in part.  However, one of the two principal issues which it pursued in the appeal concerned whether a development must comply with a precinct plan which it alone could initiate.  Springfield’s case was that it must.  That issue was contested by both the first respondent, Cherish Enterprises Pty Ltd, and the second respondent, Ipswich City Council (“Council”).  The issue was resolved against Springfield.
  4. [4]
    Springfield did, nevertheless, succeed on the other principal issue in which it contended that a development must comply with an antecedently approved area development plan.  That contention was supported by the Council but resisted by Cherish.
  5. [5]
    Bearing in mind that it was necessary for Springfield to appeal to vary the declaration made below, but having regard to the outcomes on the two principal issues, I consider that Cherish should pay to Springfield 50 per cent of its costs of the appeal on the standard basis.  No order should be made in respect of Cherish’s costs of the appeal.
  6. [6]
    As to the Council’s costs, it was successful in its limited resistance to the appeal and wholly successful in its cross-appeal.  Having regard to the outcomes on the principal issues, I am of the view that the Council’s costs of the appeal and cross-appeal should be borne equally by Springfield and Cherish.
  7. [7]
    I would propose the following orders as to costs:
    1. The first respondent is to pay 50 per cent of the appellant’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.
    2. The first respondent and the appellant are each to pay 50 per cent of the second respondent’s costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal on the standard basis.
  8. [8]
    BURNS J:  I agree.
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Springfield Land Corporation Pty Limited v Cherish Enterprises Pty Ltd & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Springfield Land Corporation Pty Limited v Cherish Enterprises Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2018] QCA 323

  • Court:

    QCA

  • Judge(s):

    Fraser JA, Gotterson JA, Burns J

  • Date:

    20 Nov 2018

Litigation History

No Litigation History

Appeal Status

No Status