Harburg Investments Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council
[2000] QCA 398
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Harburg Investments Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council[2000] QCA 398
- Add to List
Harburg Investments Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council[2000] QCA 398
Harburg Investments Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council[2000] QCA 398
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
PINCUS JA
THOMAS JA
Appeal No 7063 of 2000
HARBURG INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
(ACN 010 279 884) Applicant
and
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL First Respondent
and
ECOVALE PTY LTD
(ACN 003 855 061) Second Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 28/09/2000
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant sought leave to appeal under Section 4.1.56(2) of the Integrated Planning Act and contends that there are two errors of law in the judgment of the Planning and Environment Court given on 28 July this year.
The first involved a contention that the learned Judge in determining "need" took account of irrelevant, or what were termed subjective matters. The content of the criterion of need under Section 4.4(3) of the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act is expansive and not fully prescribed. I note especially paragraph (l) which brings in "such other matters having regard to the nature of the application as are relevant."
In light of the authorities mentioned by the Judge in paragraph 24 of his judgment, the factual considerations covered in paragraph 26 were arguably relevant. His Honour's reliance on those matters therefore should not be seen as having involved any arguable error of law.
The applicant relied secondly on the Judge's conclusion that the land fell within the Aspley business centre. That related to a designation on the strategic plan. The Judge rightly characterised his decision on that as one of fact - see paragraph 36 of his judgment. He held that it did fall within that centre. That is a purely factual exercise.
The judgment discloses neither of the suggested errors of law and the application should be dismissed.
PINCUS JA: I agree.
THOMAS JA: I agree.
...
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: With costs to be assessed.