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

Redland City Council v King of Gifts (Qld) and HTC Consulting Pty Ltd[2021] QCA 210

Redland City Council v King of Gifts (Qld) and HTC Consulting Pty Ltd[2021] QCA 210

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Redland City Council v King of Gifts (Qld) and HTC Consulting Pty Ltd & Anor [2021] QCA 210

PARTIES:

REDLAND CITY COUNCIL

(applicant)

v

KING OF GIFTS (QLD) PTY LTD

ABN 40 005 885 405

HTC CONSULTING PTY LTD

ABN 76 075 042 983

(first respondents)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS

(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10074 of 2020

P & E No 3641 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Planning and Environment Court Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court at Brisbane – [2020] QPEC 42 (Kefford DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

1 October 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 March 2021

JUDGES:

Fraser and McMurdo and Mullins JJA

ORDERS:

  1. Grant leave to appeal.
  2. Allow the appeal.
  3. Set aside the final order made in the Planning and Environment Court on 7 August 2020.
  4. The first respondents’ appeal to the Planning and Environment Court is dismissed.
  5. The first respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING – PLANNING SCHEMES AND INSTRUMENTS – QUEENSLAND – where, in 2018, the primary judge granted an appeal pursuant to s 461(1) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) (‘SPA’) against the applicant’s refusal of a development application for a material change of use to develop land for a service station, drive through restaurant and an on-site effluent disposal irrigation area – where, in 2020, this Court granted an application for leave to appeal and allowed an appeal against the 2018 judgment upon the ground that the primary judge had erred in principle in the application of s 326 of the SPA – where in this Court’s 2020 decision the orders made by the primary judge were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Planning and Environment Court to be determined according to law – where no additional evidence was adduced at the remitted hearing – where, on rehearing, the primary judge allowed the appeal, and approved the development application subject to conditions – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against that judgment upon the ground that the primary judge erred by finding in fact that there was a need for the proposed development and its constituent elements, at the proposed location, in the absence of any evidence of that fact – where in the 2017 reasons the primary judge described the proposed development as “fundamentally different in nature and size (in terms of its footprint) to the types of uses and development that the Redlands Planning Scheme envisages on the subject site” – where the primary judge also found there was a need for the proposed development that was sufficient to justify approval despite the conflicts with the Redlands Planning Scheme – where the primary judge relied on economists’ and town planners’ reports for that finding – where the primary judge found there was a “clear and strong level of economic need” – where the primary judge found that the combined effect of six matters established that “the public interest in approval of the proposed development is greater than the public interest in upholding strict compliance with the Redlands Planning Scheme by refusing the development” – whether the primary judge erred in law by making that finding in the absence of supporting evidence

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), s 326(1)(b)

Bell v Brisbane City Council (2018) 230 LGERA 374; [2018] QCA 84, applied

Gold Coast City Council v K & K (GC) Pty Ltd [2020] QPELR 631; [2019] QCA 132, applied

Lipoma Pty Ltd & Anor v Redland City Council & Anor [2020] QCA 180, distinguished

Redland City Council v King of Gifts (Qld) Pty Ltd & HTC Consulting Pty Ltd (2020) 3 QR 494; [2020] QCA 41, applied

COUNSEL:

R S Litster QC, with K Wylie, for the applicant

C L Hughes QC, with P Beehre, for the first respondents

No appearance for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Redland City Council Legal Services Division for the applicant

AJ Torbey & Associates for the first respondents

No appearance for the second respondent

  1. [1]
    FRASER JA:  The first respondents appealed to the Planning and Environment Court against a decision of the applicant Council refusing a development approval for a material change of use to develop land at Alexandra Hills for a service station (including a shop and carwash facility) and a drive through restaurant, with an onsite effluent disposal irrigation area.  For reasons that were published in 2017,[1] in 2018 the primary judge allowed the appeal and ordered that the first respondents’ development application be approved subject to conditions.  In 2020, this Court granted an application for leave to appeal and allowed an appeal against the 2018 judgment upon the ground that the primary judge had erred in principle in the application of s 326 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld).[2]  The orders made by the primary judge were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Planning and Environment Court to be determined according to law.
  2. [2]
    No additional evidence was adduced at the remitted hearing.  On 7 August 2020 the primary judge published reasons, allowed the appeal, and approved the development application subject to conditions.[3]  The Council seeks leave to appeal against that judgment upon the ground that the primary judge erred by finding in fact that there was a need for the proposed development, including each of its constituent elements, at the proposed location, in the absence of any evidence of that fact.
  3. [3]
    The proposed appeal is by leave and may be brought only upon grounds of error or mistake in law, or jurisdictional error.[4]  The ground of the proposed appeal contends for an error of law; a finding made in the absence of evidence supporting the finding is an error of law, and what amounts to evidence that could support a factual finding is itself a question of law.[5]
  4. [4]
    At the material time, s 326(1)(b) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) provided that a decision by the assessment manager (which in this case was the Council) “must not conflict with a relevant instrument unless … there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision, despite the conflict”.  The “relevant instrument” is the Redlands Planning Scheme Version 4, which I will describe as the “Redlands Planning Scheme”.  The term “grounds” is defined to mean “matters of public interest”.
  5. [5]
    In the 2017 reasons the primary judge found that there were conflicts between the proposed development and the Redlands Planning Scheme, including:

[32] I accept that the proposed development involves an intensively developed complex of built form with a distinctly urban character. I do not regard the use as “low key”, nor as one that “cover(s) only a small portion of the land” and, in that respect, approval of the proposed development would conflict with overall outcome 5.15.8(2)f and specific outcome S1.7(1)(c) of the Kinross Road Structure Plan Area Overlay Code. It also conflicts with overall outcome 4.6.7(2)(c)(i)d of the Environmental Protection Zone Code, as I would not describe the footprint as limited or contained, even though it is confined to that part of the subject site that is already cleared.

[33] Although there are other businesses within the same visual catchment, in my view a decision to approve the proposed development would conflict with overall outcome 4.6.7(2)(d)(i)c of the Environmental Protection Zone Code as, to the extent that it is visible, the use is not one that complements the current landscape setting. It is of a very different built form character to what currently exists or is encouraged in the Redlands Planning Scheme, particularly given the night-time glow that will be associated with the 24 hour a day use.”[6]

  1. [6]
    Overall outcome for point 4.6.7(2)(b)(i)e. of the Environmental Protection Zone Code states that it provides “for a range of low-key uses and other development that … e. are low-key and have a very low impact on environmental values”.  In the same code, specific outcome 2.1 identifies as uses not established in the zone a service station use and a drive through restaurant use.  After referring to those provisions and evidence given by town planners,[7] the primary judge observed:

“[85] Accordingly, a decision to approve the proposed development would conflict with:

  1. (a)
    overall outcome 4.6.7(2)(b)(i)e of the Environmental Protection Zone Code;
  1. (b)
    specific outcomes S2.1 and S2.2(1) of the Environmental Protection Zone Code; and
  1. (c)
    overall outcome 5.15.8(2)f (with respect to the first and third triangle bullet point under the fourth square only) and specific outcomes S1.1 and S1.7(2)(a) and (c) of the Kinross Road Structure Plan Area Overlay Code.

[86] A decision to approve the proposed development would also conflict with overall outcome 6.9.3(2)(a) and specific outcome S1(1)(a) and (b) of the Drive Through Restaurant Code as it is not compatible with the character of the locality in which it is located, nor is it proposed to be located within an existing centre.”[8]

  1. [7]
    The primary judge found that the conflicts identified in [32] of the 2017 reasons were not serious.[9] The primary judge described the proposed development as “fundamentally different in nature and size (in terms of its footprint) to the types of uses and development that the Redlands Planning Scheme envisages on the subject site”[10] and observed that there was a “clear conflict” because the proposed development would “locate uses that are nominated as inconsistent uses and that are not low-key in nature in a zone that does not encourage that style of use”.[11]
  2. [8]
    In the 2017 reasons the primary judge found that the seriousness of the conflicts was mitigated or reduced by various matters, which mostly concerned the design and appearance of the proposed development,[12] and because of the primary judge’s views that the “planning rationale” for limiting the uses to low-key uses with minimal footprint was “in large part” to ensure the achievement of environmental and visual amenity goals and the proposed development did not materially compromise those goals.[13]
  3. [9]
    The primary judge also found there was a need for the proposed development that was sufficient to justify approval despite the conflicts with the Redlands Planning Scheme.[14]  At the hearing the Council had accepted there was a need for an additional service station within a “trade area” identified by economists who gave evidence, which included the location of the proposed development.  (The economists, Mr Duane and Mr Norling, described a “trade area”, and a “Primary Sector” within that trade area, extending for some kilometres around the site of the proposed development.[15])
  4. [10]
    There was an issue at that hearing about the level of the need in the relevant trade area.  The primary judge resolved the debate by finding there was “a clear and strong level of economic need given”:
  1. (a)
    there is currently approximately 10 000 persons in the primary trade area alone, which is predicted to increase to 13 700 persons by 2031. As such, the primary trade area could presently support two to three service stations. It currently supports none. This court refused one of the two proposed service stations, the Coles Express at Paradise Gardens, on 6 September 2017. Mr Norling acknowledged that the growing population of the primary trade area will support an increased provision of commercial facilities such as a service station, car wash and fast food outlet;
  1. (b)
    the projected population increases for Redland City indicate that a further ten service stations will be required in Redland City in the coming years, with two supportable in Thornlands. As such, existing service stations in Redland City have substantial existing and future population bases to serve;
  1. (c)
    the growth in the fuel market in the primary trade area is projected at 5.8 million litres. A modern service station typically requires around 3 – 3.5 million to be successful. As such, the growth in the fuel market demonstrates the need for an additional two service stations;
  1. (d)
    in relation to the drive through restaurant, it is a normal part of this type of development to co-locate with such uses. The subject site provides a sustainable viable location for a drive through facility complementing the service station, particularly given its location on the homeward bound side of the road;
  1. (e)
    the proposed development would provide increased convenience, choice and competition in a growing market. There is no service station with car wash facilities in the southern part of the catchment; Mr Norling acknowledged that the co-location of fast food outlets and car washes with service stations provides a convenience benefit to many motorists. He also acknowledged that the proposed development would improve the convenience for those in the primary trade area, and that it would improve the level of choice, which is currently low for those in the primary trade area; and
  1. (f)
    the proposed development is unlikely to impact on the ability of the existing or other proposed service station to viably trade over time. The total fuel market in the trade area is projected to be in excess of 26 million litres by 2031, excluding commercial vehicles, boats and visitors.”[16]
  1. [11]
    In the appeal from the primary judge’s 2018 judgment, this Court accepted the Council’s argument that the primary judge’s consideration of the application of s 326(1)(b) involved an error of law.  The Court acknowledged in its 2020 judgment that the primary judge’s decision was a consequence of the way in which the parties had presented their cases in the Planning and Environment Court and that the primary judge did not then have the benefit of two judgments of the Court, Bell v Brisbane City Council[17] and Gold Coast City Council v K & K (GC) Pty Ltd,[18] which were published after the 2018 judgment.
  2. [12]
    In Gold Coast City Council v K & K (GC) Pty Ltd, Sofronoff P, with whose reasons I and Flanagan J agreed, cited decisions in the Planning and Environment Court and observed:[19]

[47] At the heart of decisions like these is the acknowledgement that conformity with the Planning Scheme is, prima facie, in the public interest. That approach is consistent with decisions of this Court from the time of the earliest planning legislation. For example, in Martin Dillon & Associates v Townsville City Council Carter DCJ said that the very raison d’être of a Planning Scheme is to best serve the needs of a community in a particular area. Most recently, McMurdo JA emphatically restated the principle in Bell.

[48] That means that it can never be enough to satisfy a provision like s 326(1)(b) of the SPA for a party merely to prove that “there is a need” for a proposed development. The existence of a need for a particular kind of development is the starting point. If the placement of a development in a particular location would conflict with a Planning Scheme, then it must be accepted that it is the intent of the Scheme that, subject to there being a matter of public interest that overrides the public interest in maintaining a Scheme, the need should met by a development on a site that does not give rise to a conflict. An applicant must identify reasons why the terms of the Planning Scheme should not prevail. Otherwise, there is a risk that, rather than applying s 326(1)(b), the decision maker will be doing no more than performing a general weighing of factors in order to determine whether, in the decision maker’s own view, it would or it would not be better to permit a development on the site to go ahead.

[67] … It has been established beyond argument that a decision maker must take a Planning Scheme to be an expression of the public interest in terms of land use. The proposition can be put the other way around. It is, in general, against the public interest to approve a development that conflicts with the Planning Scheme. To justify such a development it must be demonstrated that the desired deviation from the Planning Scheme serves the public interest to an extent greater than the maintenance of the status quo. The public interest that is to be satisfied by the proposed development must be greater than the public interest in certainty that the terms of a Planning Scheme will be faithfully applied. …

[68] A decision might be justified because the expression of public interest constituted by the Planning Scheme did not take into account, because it was unable to do so, later social developments. That was the case established before Andrews DCJ in Woodman. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that unforeseen circumstances must be shown in every case. It may be accepted that the need for a particular development in a particular place may constitute a matter of public interest because an identified section of the public has an interest in seeing that need satisfied by a development in the particular location. Whether that is so is a question for the decision maker to consider in the circumstances of the case. If, in the circumstances of a particular case, it is in the public interest that an identified need be satisfied by a development in a place that results in a conflict, it is necessary for the decision maker to go on to consider whether the identified public interest in satisfying the need overrides the conflict with the Planning Scheme, which it is generally in the public interest to avoid. …

[69] That process was not undertaken in this case. Although the words “matters of public interest” appear in various places in the record, the case actually proceeded upon the basis of assumptions that considerations that were once relevant under repealed legislation were those that still applied under this legislation …”.

  1. [13]
    In the Court’s 2020 judgment, McMurdo JA said of the primary judge’s findings in the 2017 reasons that there was a need for the proposed development:[20]

[169] But it did not follow from those findings that there was a ground for approving the development inconsistently with the planning scheme. Unless it was demonstrated that, in the relevant respects, the planning scheme, as it applied to this site, no longer represented what was required in the public interest, it could not be said that there were “grounds” (meaning matters of public interest) for permitting the development. What had to be established was not just that there was a need for such a development in the area, but that there was a need for the development in a location where the planning scheme provided that it should not occur. It had to be shown that, in the public interest, it was necessary to override the scheme as it applied to this land.

[171] … Counsel for the respondents were unable to demonstrate that the primary judge did consider whether there was a need for the development in a location where the planning scheme provided that it should not occur, as distinct from more generally in the area, or a part of the area, governed by the planning scheme.

[172] The primary judge accepted that there were other matters, advanced by the present respondents, which were “supportive of approval of the proposed development.” Her Honour did not say that these grounds, absent a “need” for the development, would be sufficient. None of them seems to be a consideration which, on its face, demonstrated that it was against the public interest that the development of this land be permitted only in conformity with the planning scheme.

[173] … The primary judge did not consider whether there was a need for this development on this location, such that the public interest would not be served by requiring that the land be developed according to the planning scheme. …”

  1. [14]
    The primary judge concluded in the 2020 reasons that the combined effect of six matters established that “the public interest in approval of the proposed development is greater than the public interest in upholding strict compliance with the Redlands Planning Scheme by refusing the development.”[21]  After setting out those matters, the primary judge expressed the ultimate conclusion that “the public interest served by approving the proposed development on the subject land overrides the conflict with the Redlands Planning Scheme occasioned by the approval of the proposed development”[22] and the first respondents had therefore satisfied the requirements of s 326(1)(b).
  2. [15]
    Before discussing those matters it is necessary to say a little more about the requirements for the application of that provision.  In addition to referring to relevant passages in the reasons of McMurdo JA in the Court’s 2020 decision, the primary judge set out parts of the reasons of Philippides JA.[23]  Philippides JA’s analysis commences with the uncontroversial legal proposition that a planning scheme must be taken to represent the public interest in the development of land to which it applies, but her Honour did not advert to the text emphasised in [48] and [68] of Sofronoff P’s reasons in Gold Coast City Council v K & K (GC) Pty Ltd (quoted in [12] of these reasons).  Those passages in Sofronoff P’s reasons are reflected in the requirements for the application of s 326(1)(b) in [169] of McMurdo JA’s reasons, which express the majority decision upon this issue in the Court’s 2020 judgment.
  3. [16]
    The primary judge indicated an intention to address the questions “whether there was a need for the development “at this location”, as opposed to more generally” and “whether “ … the public interest would not be served by requiring that the land be developed according to the planning scheme”.[24]  Ultimately, however, the primary judge applied what her Honour described as being “the real question”, namely, “whether the deviation from the Redlands Planning Scheme to approve the proposed development at the proposed location serves the public interest to an extent greater that the public interest in refusing the development and thereby maintaining the land so that it may be developed in accordance with the Redlands Planning Scheme.”[25]  In my respectful opinion, that way of expressing the test may distract attention from the requirements for the application of s 326(1)(b) identified in [15] of these reasons.
  4. [17]
    It is necessary next to refer to the parties’ main arguments upon the presently relevant issue at the remitted hearing.  The first respondents’ argument depended upon evidence given at the original hearing by economists and town planners, together with what the primary judge regarded as a relevant concession made by counsel in the conduct of the Council’s case at that hearing.  The argument was substantially encapsulated in the following paragraph of the first respondents’ outline of argument at the remitted hearing:[26]

“It is the submission of the Appellant that there are findings of the Court below (endorsed in general by the Court of Appeal) which establish:

  1. (a)
    a need for the proposed development (including each of the components of the development in an economic, town planning and community sense) in this locality with the relevant locality being understood as the trade area identified and agreed to in the economic JER;
  1. (b)
    a need for the proposed development on the subject site having regard not just to its specific prominent and strategic location on a busy road conveniently serving residents of the trade area and passing motorists but also the findings summarised below about the proposed development on the subject site; and
  1. (c)
    findings with respect to the proposed development on the subject land specifically support the propositions that:
  1. (i)
    there will be no unacceptable impacts in satisfying the relevant need on the subject land (in terms of visual amenity or environmental impacts);
  1. (ii)
    there will be environmental benefits in that the environmental values of the land (such as they are) have been recognised and will be protected and enhanced;
  1. (iii)
    there is no credible argument that the need for the provision of the proposed facilities can or ought to be provided on an alternate site within the trade area which would not involve non-compliance with the planning scheme – indeed the Council, in the conduct of its case, conceded so much (see paragraph 81 below); and
  1. (iv)
    the community will benefit from the provision of proposed road frontage dedication.”
  1. [18]
    Paragraph 45(a) concerns need within the trade area.  It is noteworthy that, except to the extent that the concession contended for in paragraph 45(c)(iii) may be relevant, paragraph 45 does not address the question whether the proposed development would be inconsistent with the Redlands Planning Scheme, or the nature of any such inconsistency, as that planning scheme applied in zones within the trade area other than the Environmental Protection Zone.
  2. [19]
    The first respondents did submit in paragraph 83 of the same written submissions that, apparently for the reasons given in the two following paragraphs, the Redlands Planning Scheme “is deficient in that it failed to anticipate and provide for a service station and associated facilities to satisfy the established need in this location”.[27]  In paragraph 84 the first respondents identified zones under the planning scheme in which the proposed development was submitted to be “permissible”.  In two zones the proposed development was submitted to be self-assessable, in one zone it was submitted to be code assessable, and the proposed development was submitted to be impact assessable in all other zones.  In paragraph 85 the first respondents submitted that there were “no such zones in the trade area in a similar convenient location and position with respect to the road network and the current and future population that would allow a service station as self-assessable or code assessable”.[28]  That submission concerned only service stations in zones in which the development would be self-assessable or code assessable.  It was not submitted that there was no similar convenient location and position within the trade area that would allow a service station in a zone where the development would be impact assessable.  The primary judge did not make a finding directed to that topic or to the narrower submission.
  3. [20]
    The primary judge observed in the 2020 judgment that the Council “does not allege that the need could be satisfactorily addressed by locating the proposed development on suitably zoned land”.[29]  In fact the Council’s written submissions did refer to a general location within the trade area identified by the economists in which, the Council submitted, it was difficult to see why development of the proposed type ought not be more favourably located, but the Council disclaimed reliance upon an “alternate sites” argument.[30]
  4. [21]
    The primary judge set out some submissions made for the Council,[31] including submissions that the respondents had “failed to identify why the needs of the community must be satisfied by a service station being located on the subject site”, they had “not presented evidence to identify any deficiency in the planning scheme that warrants location of a service station, car wash and drive through restaurant within its Environmental Protection Zone”, and there was “no evidence of a scheme deficiency that has resulted in an urgent need for the proposed development on the site.”  At the original hearing the Council, like the first respondents, had not addressed the issue to which those submissions were directed.  That did not make it inappropriate to make those submissions at the remitted hearing,[32] which were directed to the requirements for the application of s 326(1)(b) confirmed by the Court’s 2020 judgment.  As McMurdo JA noted, the primary judge’s conclusion in the 2017 reasons “was a consequence of the way in which the parties presented their cases in her Court”.[33]  The possibility that at a further hearing the respondents would be able to point to evidence (or, perhaps, adduce further evidence with leave) directed to the real issue arising under s 326(1)(b) explains why this Court remitted the matter instead of making an order dismissing the respondents’ appeal to the Planning and Environment Court.
  5. [22]
    As I have indicated, the primary judge’s ultimate conclusion in favour of the first respondents in the 2020 judgment was based upon six matters.  The first and third matters were the primary judge’s findings that there was a strong need for the proposed development “in the trade area” to ensure that the physical well-being of this growing community was appropriately addressed, and that need was not able to be satisfactorily addressed by existing development.[34]  Those findings concern need within the trade area.  They are not directed to the presently relevant question “whether there was a need for the development in a location where the planning scheme provided that it should not occur, as distinct from more generally in the area, or a part of the area, governed by the planning scheme”.[35]
  6. [23]
    In a different part of the reasons, however, the primary judge discussed the evidence relating to those matters and found:[36]

“Having regard to the evidence of the economists and town planners referred to above, including the evidence referred to in paragraph [77] above, I am satisfied that there is a need for the proposed development, including each of its constituent elements, at the proposed location.”

  1. [24]
    In paragraphs [75] and [76] the primary judge discussed the meaning of “need” in planning terms and referred to the Council’s acceptance that there was need for an additional service station “within the primary trade area identified by the economists” and that the proposed service station would also provide greater convenience and choice to passing motorists who resided within or outside the primary trade area.  In paragraph [77], the primary judge repeated the finding and the reasons for the finding in the 2017 reasons[37] that there was “a clear and strong level of economic need for the proposed development”.  Consistently with the evidence and the acceptance by the Council to which the primary judge referred, that finding concerned need within “the primary trade area”.  So much is also made clear by the repeated references in [77] to the relevant conditions in that area.[38]  Other references to “Redland City” and “the southern part of the catchment”[39] cannot be understood as references to a need for a development at the particular location for which approval was sought.
  2. [25]
    Subparagraph (d) of paragraph [77] refers to the site of the proposed development in the conclusion that the subject location provides a sustainable and viable location for a drive-through restaurant.  That attribute of the proposed development was not said to depend upon the development being conducted at the subject land.  The mere fact that it would be sustainable and viable at the subject land could not justify a conclusion that the relevant provisions of the Redlands Planning Scheme should no longer be regarded as embodying the public interest in the use of that site such that it was in the public interest to approve a development that, as the primary judge held, would be “fundamentally different in nature and size (in terms of its footprint) to the types of uses and development that the Redlands Planning Scheme envisages on the subject site”.[40]
  3. [26]
    The primary judge discussed the evidence given by the two economists, Mr Duane and Mr Norling, including the Joint Economic Need Report they had prepared.  The primary judge considered that the “need for the proposed development at the proposed location was the very issue considered by” those economists and their analysis was not confined to the issue of need within the trade area.[41]  The submissions for the Council that the evidence does not support those conclusions should be accepted.
  4. [27]
    In the Joint Economic Need Report, an introduction identifies the site of the proposed development and describes the report as an investigation of the “economic need aspects of the proposal”.  Section 1 of the report refers to the first respondents’ “Grounds for Approval” as including reference to “a clear need for a further service station and facilities in this general location” and states that the report “addresses the issues of need and demand for the proposed subject development”.  The second quote does not describe the issue as being about a need for the proposed development to occur at the subject site as opposed to a need for it to occur within a larger area.  The reference in the first quote to “this general location” suggests that the issue was about need within a larger area.
  5. [28]
    Section 2 of the report describes aspects of the planning scheme.  The primary judge observed that in this section the economists identified “relevant context from the planning documents that inform their opinions about the need for the subject development on the subject land”.[42]  The economists did not use similar language; an introductory paragraph states that section 2 “is not intended to be evidence relating to planning issues, but rather provide context relevant to the assessment of community and economic need”.[43]  Section 3 of the report contains information about the service station industry which is not of present relevance.  Consistently with the submission for the first respondents, the primary judge noted that in sections 4 and 5 of the report the economists considered whether there was “a need for further facilities of the type proposed in the trade area”.[44]
  6. [29]
    The primary judge considered that in sections 6 and 7 of the report, the economists analysed the need for the proposed development “on the subject land”.[45]  Section 6 describes average daily volumes of traffic on major roads adjacent to and near the site and concludes that the site has a high level of visibility and exposure to passing traffic but does not enjoy access to one of the two roads adjacent to the site.  Section 7 identifies the location of other service stations (and a proposed service station) that would compete with the development and the characteristics of those other service stations.  None of the evidence accepted by the primary judge suggests either that these characteristics are essential to a successful development of the proposed kind or that there is no other land within the trade area which possesses the characteristics necessary for such a development and is more suitably zoned for it.
  7. [30]
    Section 8 of the report concerns only the location and some characteristics of other drive-through restaurants in the “surrounding region”.[46]  The primary judge described the effect of section 9 of the report as containing conclusions expressed by the economists “with respect to the need for the proposed development”.[47]  Paragraph 70 in section 9 records Mr Duane’s opinion that “there is a clear and strong level of economic need for the subject development”.  Mr Duane’s opinion is expressed in ten sub-paragraphs.  The first eight of those sub-paragraphs are directed to the feasibility of the proposed development in the context of the catchment population required for a viable service station and the existence of one service station and another proposed service station in the trade area.[48]  Another paragraph states Mr Duane’s opinion that “the subject development would provide increased convenience, choice and competition in a growing market”.  The remaining paragraph records Mr Duane’s opinion that the subject development would be unlikely to impact upon the viability of existing or proposed service stations.
  8. [31]
    The primary judge quoted the introductory words of a paragraph of the joint report[49]  that “JN concludes that there is a minor to modest level of community, economic and planning need for the proposed Service Station on the subject site”.[50]  The explanation for that opinion in the following sub-paragraphs makes it plain that the need to which Mr Norling referred was not a need for the proposed development to occur in this particular location where the planning scheme provides that it should not occur.  Five of the sub-paragraphs criticise the proposal in terms that suggest the absence of any relevant need.  Of the remaining sub-paragraphs, (a) merely describes the convenience to many motorists of the co-location of fast food outlets and carwashes with service stations, (b) states that the growing population of the “Primary Sector” will support the “increasing provision of commercial facilities” such as those proposed, and (c) attributes to the proposed development an advantage in servicing passing motorists over a service station that was proposed to form part of a shopping centre in a different area.  Consistently with the focus of the report, the “Primary Sector” is a reference to the trade area described by the economists.
  9. [32]
    The primary judge quoted an extract from the evidence given by Mr Norling.  That evidence was given in answer to a question about “the relevance of the trade areas to your opinion”, the part of the answer emphasised by the primary judge conveyed only that it was the primary trade area, rather than the whole of the trade area that was relevant in Mr Norling’s opinion, and so much was made plain by Mr Norling’s concluding statement that the relevant matter was “servicing the needs of that primary - existing and further primary trade area population”.[51]
  10. [33]
    The primary judge referred[52] to the statement in the report describing Mr Duane’s response to Mr Norling’s opinion, in which Mr Duane highlighted the advantage of the proposed site in terms of the excellence of its exposure to one of the main roads and noting that if the subject site were developed that would be likely to provide additional choice for an operator of the development “within the defined catchment”, particular convenience for residents, and increased fuel retailing competition for traffic travelling along two main roads.  The primary judge also referred[53] to a report by Mr Duane.[54]  As the primary judge noted, Mr Duane addressed access arrangements for the proposed location of the development and he was cross-examined upon that and related topics.
  11. [34]
    In summary, the economists expressed opinions that there was a need for a service station and drive through restaurant within the trade area and that various attributes of the location of the proposed development contributed to it being a suitable place to fulfil that need.  They did not give evidence that those attributes were peculiar to that location or that a development at a different and more suitably zoned location within the trade area could not fulfil the identified need unless it possessed the same attributes.
  12. [35]
    The evidence given by the town planners did not take the first respondents’ case any further. The town planner retained by the appellant, Mr Ovenden, expressed the opinion that, for reasons he gave, it was not appropriate to meet the need for the proposed development on the subject land.  The primary judge did not accept his opinion.  The primary judge accepted the evidence given by the town planner retained by the first respondents, Mr Schomburgk.  The primary judge observed that Mr Schomburgk expressed opinions that “the provision of the proposed development on the subject land would improve the well-being of the community” and would “provide those residents with a more convenient and accessible choice of facilities for their fuel, fast food and related impulse retail goods needs than that which presently exists”.[55]  The first respondents submitted that Mr Schomburgk did express those opinions but the evidence cited for that submission[56] does not support it.[57]
  13. [36]
    The relevant statements in Mr Schomburgk’s and Mr Ovenden’s Joint Experts Report are statements by Mr Schomburgk in paragraph 129:
  1. (a)
    There is a clear need for a further service station and facilities in this general location as determined by Mr Duane and agreed with Mr Norling (subject to qualification of the extent of that need).
  1. (b)
    The subject proposal would serve a growing trade area population as well as passing traffic able to support such a facility.
  1. (c)
    The proposal would add to choice, convenience and competition for fuel and ancillary retaining in the trade area.

  1. (l)
    The proposal offers low-key, small-scale fast food and retail facilities for the convenience of local and passing trade.
  1. (m)
    The site is on the left hand side of the homeward journey for many Alexandra Hills/Thornlands/Victoria Point residents, adding to the convenience and accessibility for fuel, fast food and related impulse retail goods for those residents.”
  1. [37]
    Consistently with the reference to the opinions of Mr Duane and Mr Norling, the “general location” mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) is the trade area they described.  The other sub-paragraphs merely describe attributes of the subject land of the kind identified by the economists.  Mr Schomburgk’s oral evidence, upon which the first respondents rely, is in the same category; Mr Schomburgk merely expressed the opinion that the subject site is convenient because it is accessible via an easy slip lane for drivers travelling towards home in one direction upon a main road and because the proposed development offers fast food and a small convenience store in addition to fuel.
  2. [38]
    The primary judge summarised the effect of the evidence of the economists and town planners as follows:

“Having regard to the evidence of the economists and town planners referred to above, including the evidence referred to in paragraph [77] above, I am satisfied that there is a need for the proposed development, including each of its constituent elements, at the proposed location. As I have already noted, there is a need for further service station facilities and drive through restaurant facilities within the trade area to serve the residents of the trade area. Residents of the growing primary trade area are generally a substantial distance away from a competitive range of facilities in close proximity to their home. They reside further away from service stations than residents elsewhere within Redland Shire. The closest alternative service station for the primary trade area is located around five kilometres from the subject land. The provision of the proposed development on the subject land will increase the choice available to the residents of the trade area. The establishment of the proposed uses at the proposed location will provide convenient access to needed facilities. The proposed development on the subject land would improve the ease, comfort, convenience and efficient lifestyle of the residents of the trade area. This is in the public interest.”[58]

  1. [39]
    The finding in the second sentence, which I have emphasised, is uncontroversial.  In the other sentences I have emphasised the primary judge identified benefits of the proposed development proceeding at the subject land, which reflected the immediately preceding findings.  The primary judge did not find that those benefits were exclusive to the subject land.  Nor did the primary judge find that there was no other more suitably zoned land within the trade area at which a development could meet the perceived need for a further service station and drive through restaurant.  The first respondents did not submit that there was evidence to that effect.  The evidence supporting the finding in the second sentence did not demonstrate that the planning scheme as it applied at the subject land had ceased to represent the public interest.
  2. [40]
    The second of the six matters which contributed to the primary judge’s ultimate conclusion is the finding that “the well-being of the residents of the trade area will be appropriately improved by the provision of the proposed development on the subject land, as the land is conveniently located and readily accessible to the public and the uses can be provided on the subject land without any unacceptable impacts on the amenity or the environment”.[59]  This finding was based upon the primary judge’s analysis of the evidence of the economists and the planners.  My discussion of that evidence explains my conclusion that this matter does not support the primary judge’s ultimate conclusion.  (I refer further to the absence of unacceptable impacts in [48] of these reasons.)
  3. [41]
    The fourth of the six matters which influenced the primary judge’s ultimate conclusion arose from the primary judge’s acceptance of the first respondents’ argument that the Council had made a relevant concession at the original hearing.  The primary judge observed that:

“…the uses that form the proposed development are such that the proposed development would need to be located in one of the centre zones; and the Council concedes that the Redlands Planning Scheme has been overtaken by events as it did not make sufficient provision of land in that zone to appropriately address the needs of the growing population in Thornlands, which population forms part of the trade area for the proposed development.”[60]

  1. [42]
    After referring to the submissions made for the Council at the original hearing from which the primary judge derived the concession, the primary judge went on to express satisfaction that the Redlands Planning Scheme “has not anticipated the extent of growth in population in the Thornlands area and has not anticipated the corresponding need to zone land to accommodate a service station and drive through restaurant to serve appropriately the public interest in the provision of these facilities”; for that reason the Redlands Planning Scheme was “not an embodiment of the public interest”, and this was a compelling reason why that scheme should not prevail in this matter.  Those conclusions reflected findings in a preceding paragraph of the primary judge’s reasons[61] that were based upon the same submissions for the Council:
    1. (a)
      The Redlands Planning Scheme had been “overtaken by … the growth in the population in the Thornlands area without a corresponding amendment to the Redlands Planning Scheme to provide, amongst other things, a service station that would appropriately provide for the needs of those residents”.
    2. (b)
      the network of centres within the area of the Kinross Road Structure Plan is deficient in that it fails to provide a centre location in this area to support appropriate centre activities, which relevantly includes a service station and a drive through restaurant”.
    3. (c)
      There was “a lack of suitably zoned alternative sites for the proposed development, as the only centre identified in the Redlands Planning Scheme, being a local centre, has been inappropriately located.”
  2. [43]
    One aspect of the submissions upon which all of these findings were based concerned the Council’s position in relation to a different development that was supported by the Council and opposed by Lipoma Pty Ltd.[62]  That proposed development was a full service supermarket with an associated tavern and service station.  The site of the subject development is at the south-west corner of the area within the Kinross Road Structure Plan Overlay Code.  The site of the other proposed development is at the south east corner of the area within that plan.  The primary judge recorded in the 2017 reasons, that the Kinross Road Structure Plan “does not … contemplate urbanisation of the subject site”, whereas the “land to the east, around Kinross Road and Panorama Drive, is in a state of transition to urban development, generally reflecting the uses encouraged by the Kinross Road Structure Plan”.[63]  The Council supported a modification of that plan that would give rise to the proposed additional commercial centre in the more urbanised, eastern end of the structure plan area.
  3. [44]
    At the original hearing counsel made the following submissions about the Council’s position in that other proposed development:

“With respect to council’s position in Lipoma … council’s position was that there was a dedicated and compelling community need for appropriate and convenient access to a full-line supermarket with an associated tavern and a service station located along Boundary Road. Its position’s also that there would be no undue economic impact upon other existing or planned centres such that the proposed development would not disrupt an existing centre hierarchy. Its case was that there was planning need for the development in that the scheme offered no other suitable location for a full-line supermarket with associated tavern and service station within that Kinross Road Structure Plan area.

Council’s ultimate position was that in regard to the network of centres, the scheme was overtaken by events, such events comprising population in the Thornlands area, without a corresponding amendment to the planning scheme to provide the services of a full-line supermarket, tavern and an associated – associated tavern and service station that is normally associated with that growth. With respect to the local centre internal to the Kinross Road Structure Plan area,[64] council’s position was that notwithstanding should the proposed development be allowed, the internal centre would continue to function. It may function at a reduced capacity due to the new development, but it would continue to function on the basis that it fulfilled a different form and function to the full-line supermarket proposed in that appeal. Ultimately, its position is that the network of centres within the area of the Kinross Road Structure Plan is deficient in that it fails to provide a centre location in this area to support a full-line supermarket with an associated service station and tavern. With respect to this appeal, council’s position is that drive-through – the starting point is that drive-through restaurants should be located with centres.”[65]

  1. [45]
    The primary judge then asked a question and counsel made the following submissions about the appropriate location of drive through restaurants:

“HER HONOUR: Just before you move on to this appeal, it was also council’s position that the local centre was inappropriately located, was it not?

MR WYLIE:

Any reduction in the size or functionality of the local centre would not be due to the proposed centre but rather the inappropriate location of the centre.

Yes, your Honour. That is the council’s position with respect to that local centre. Council’s position is that drive-through restaurants should be co-located with centres, and it submits that they may be co-located with local through to major centres for the real benefits that can be achieved and which I’ve already cross-examined on and we’ll make submissions on. If your Honour were of the view that there was a significant level of need for a drive-through restaurant within the Kinross Road primary trade area and that it were unreasonable for those residents to travel to other existing centres that have those facilities, then out-of-centre development should be permitted in that there is - if your Honour forms a view that a drive-through restaurant is needed in that area council accepts that there is no centre within the Kinross Road Structure Plan area that can cater that demand. That’s premised on the basis that there is a need which council challenges.

Further, notwithstanding that, it’s council’s position that this is an inappropriate site to satisfy that need for the reasons that it is…”[66]

Counsel then developed arguments that the subject site was inappropriate to satisfy a need for a drive through restaurant if, contrary to his submission, the primary judge found there was a need for such a restaurant at the subject site.

  1. [46]
    Those submissions made it clear that the Council’s support for that other proposed development was premised upon it being “a full-line supermarket … and an … associated tavern and service station” in the more urbanised area to the east of the subject proposed development.  Even so, taking into account other submissions made for the Council at the original hearing in relation to the location of drive through restaurants[67] it may be arguable that the public interest in applying the planning scheme did not necessarily compel rejection of the first respondents’ application merely upon the ground that the planning scheme required the drive through restaurant to be located in an existing centre.[68]  At the subject land, however, both a drive through restaurant and a service station use would also be inconsistent with specific outcomes of the Environmental Protection Zone Code: see [6] of these reasons.  The first respondents did not advance a case that those or similar provisions applied in all other zones within the trade area.
  2. [47]
    In any event, the submissions for the Council do not supply a basis for disregarding the many other inconsistencies between the proposed development and the planning scheme as it applied to the subject land, including those other inconsistencies with the provisions applicable in the Environmental Protection Zone which contributed to the primary judge’s conclusion quoted in [7] of these reasons that the proposed development was “fundamentally different in nature and size (in terms of its footprint) to the types of uses and development that the Redland’s Planning Scheme envisages on the subject site”.  The first respondents did not advance a case that those or similar inconsistencies would arise in all other zones within the trade area in which a service station and drive-through restaurant otherwise might be developed.
  3. [48]
    The fifth matter[69] which contributed to the primary judge’s ultimate conclusion comprises the primary judge’s opinions that “the conflict is not occasioned by any consequent undue impact”, it would “not destroy local amenity”,[70] and it was also relevant that there would not be a material compromise of the environmental and visual amenity goals informing the planning outcomes sought by the provisions with which the proposed development conflicted.  This overlaps with the reference to the absence of unacceptable impacts on amenity or the environment referred to in the second matter: see [40] of these reasons.  The primary judge cited a statement by Holmes JA (as her Honour then was) in Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd[71] that “[i]t must be a matter of public interest, for example, that the project under consideration will not destroy local amenity.”  That statement was not addressed to the issue about the application of s 326(1)(b) decided in Bell, Gold Coast City Council v K & K (GC) Pty Ltd, and in the Court’s 2020 judgment (see [11]-[13] of these reasons).  The attributes of the proposed development comprising the fifth matter do not constitute a reason why that development should be permitted to occur in conflict with the planning scheme as it applies at the subject site.
  4. [49]
    The nature and extent of a conflict between a proposed development at a particular location and a town planning scheme may be an important factor, amongst other factors, for a decision whether an identified need for that development to occur at that particular location overrides the public interest expressed in the applicable planning scheme.  It remains necessary, however, to consider whether there is “a need for the development in a location where the planning scheme provided that it should not occur”.[72]  As Sofronoff P explained in Gold Coast City Council v K & K (GC) Pty Ltd,[73] it is necessary first to identify “reasons why the terms of the Planning Scheme should not prevail”; such a reason may be constituted by a need for a particular development to occur “in a particular place”, a need of that particular kind being capable of constituting a public interest “because an identified section of the public has an interest in seeing that need satisfied by a development in the particular location”.  That requirement is not satisfied by a conclusion that the seriousness of the conflict is reduced by the ways in which the proposed development otherwise complies with aspects of the applicable planning scheme.[74]
  5. [50]
    The final matter which contributed to the primary judge’s ultimate conclusion was the primary judge’s finding that it was in the public interest that the proposed development would facilitate ultimate upgrading of the local road network by ensuring the development was appropriately set back from existing roads in accordance with the required road reserves.  The primary judge did not find that no corresponding benefit could be provided by a similar development at any different place in the trade area where it might be carried out upon more suitably zoned land.  Nor did the primary judge find that a benefit of this character might of itself justify approval of a development in a location where it would conflict with the planning scheme in the many ways described by the primary judge.
  6. [51]
    I respectfully conclude that the evidence did not support the factual findings upon which the primary judge’s ultimate conclusion was based.

Proposed orders

  1. [52]
    The appropriate orders are:
  1. Grant leave to appeal.
  1. Allow the appeal.
  2. Set aside the final order made in the Planning and Environment Court on 7 August 2020.
  3. The first respondents’ appeal to the Planning and Environment Court is dismissed.
  4. The first respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
  1. [53]
    McMURDO JA:  I agree with Fraser JA.
  2. [54]
    MULLINS JA:  I agree with Fraser JA.

Footnotes

[1]King of Gifts (Qld) Pty Ltd v Redland City Council & Anor [2017] QPEC 64.

[2]Redland City Council v King of Gifts (Qld) Pty Ltd & HTC Consulting Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QCA 41.

[3]King of Gifts (Qld) Pty Ltd v Redland City Council & Anor [2020] QPEC 42.

[4]Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) s 63.

[5]Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 355 – 6 (Mason CJ) and Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390 at 418 [90] – [91] (Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).

[6]Internal footnotes have been omitted.

[7][2017] QPEC 64 at [76] – [84].

[8]Internal footnotes have been omitted.

[9][2017] QPEC 64 at [34].

[10][2017] QPEC 64 at [82].

[11][2017] QPEC 64 at [94].

[12][2017] QPEC 64 at [34]-[35], [89], and [95].

[13][2017] QPEC 64 at [95].

[14][2017] QPEC 64 at [108].

[15]Joint Economic Need Report, section 4, pp. 12 and 14 [40] and [42].

[16][2017] QPEC 64 at [102].

[17][2018] QCA 84.

[18][2019] QCA 132.

[19][2019] QCA 132 at [47] – [48], [67] – [68] internal references have been omitted.  The emphasis in [48] and [68] is that of McMurdo JA in the Court’s 2020 judgment at [170].

[20][2020] QCA 41 at [169], [171] – [173].

[21][2020] QPEC 42 at [128].

[22][2020] QPEC 42 at [135].

[23][2020] QCA 41 at [116], [127] – [129].

[24][2020] QPEC 42 at [29].

[25][2020] QPEC 42 at [30], [31], [127].  After expressing that test in [127], however, the primary judge’s statement of the conclusion in [128] omitted the text “at the proposed location”: see [14] of these reasons.

[26]Appellant’s outline of argument, 13 July 2020, para 45.

[27]Appellant’s outline of argument, 13 July 2020, para 83.

[28]Appellant’s outline of argument, 13 July 2020, para 85.  The emphasis was in the original submission.

[29][2020] QPEC 42 at [132].

[30]Respondents’ outline of argument on remitted hearing, 10 July 2020, para 21.

[31][2020] QPEC 42 at [104].

[32]Contrast [2020] QPEC 42 at [79] (last sentence), [80], and [106] (second and third sentences).

[33][2020] QCA 41 at [173].

[34][2020] QPEC 42 at [129] and [131].

[35][2020] QCA 41 at [171].

[36][2020] QPEC 42 at [103].  I have added the emphasis.

[37][2017] QPEC 64 at [102].

[38][2020] QPEC 42 at [77](a), (c), (e) and (f).

[39][2020] QPEC 42 at [77](b) and (e).

[40][2017] QPEC 64 at [82].

[41][2020] QPEC 42 at [81].

[42][2020] QPEC 42 at [83].  I have added the emphasis.

[43]Joint Economic Need Report p. 4, section 2, para 15.

[44][2020] QPEC 42 at [90].

[45][2020] QPEC 42 at [91].

[46]Joint Economic Need Report, section 8, p. 28, para 65.

[47][2020] QPEC 42 at [92].

[48]Joint Economic Need Report, section 9, pp. 30-31 [70(a) – (h)].

[49]Joint Economic Need Report, section 9, pp. 31-32 [71].

[50][2020] QPEC 42 at [93].  The emphasis was added by the primary judge.

[51][2020] QPEC 42 at [94].

[52][2020] QPEC 42 at [98].

[53][2020] QPEC 42 at [96] – [97].

[54]Statement of Evidence of Gavin Duane dated 30th January 2017.

[55][2020] QPEC 42 at [101].

[56]Footnote 55 of the first respondents’ outline of argument refers to T 3 – 25 at lines 21 to 40 and the Joint Economic Need for Report at paragraph 129, especially subparagraphs (c) and (l).

[57]Although Mr Duane expressed his opinion “in a market where Redland City will demand more service stations, in an area specifically where there’s population growth, in an area where there’s a site on a high profile location and when there’s a gap in a network, that there will be an improvement in the wellbeing of the community from this development”: Transcript 31 July 2017, 1-28, ll. 28-32.

[58][2020] QPEC 42 at [103].

[59][2020] QPEC 42 at [130].

[60][2020] QPEC 42 at [132].

[61][2020] QPEC 42 at [107].

[62]See Lipoma Pty Ltd v Redland City Council & Nerinda Pty Ltd [2018] QPELR 1, Lipoma Pty Ltd v Redland City Council [2019] QPEC 43; Lipoma Pty Ltd v Redland City Council & Nerinda Pty Ltd [2020] QPELR 148, and Lipoma Pty Ltd & Anor v Redland City Council & Anor [2020] QCA 180.

[63][2017] QPEC 64 at [6].

[64]The Kinross Road Structure Plan provides for a “Mixed Use Local Centre” on Kinross Road in an area north of Boundary Road and north west of the development opposed by Lipoma.

[65]Transcript 8 March 2017, 3 – 51, line 24 to 3 – 52, line 2.

[66]Transcript 8 March 2017, 3 – 52, lines 4 – 26.

[67]See Respondent Council’s Written Submission, 11 August 2017, p. 19 at para 74 and [2017] QPEC 64 at [90].

[68]This requirement is in the Drive Through Restaurant Code: see [86] of the 2017 reasons, quoted in [6] of these reasons, and [2020] QPEC 42 at [62] (last sentence) and [63](d).

[69][2020] QPEC 42 at [133].

[70]The primary judge cited Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Westlink Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 370; [2013] 2 Qd R 302, 323 – 4 [25].

[71][2012] QCA 370; [2013] 2 Qd R 302, 323-4 [25].

[72][2020] QCA 41 at [169].

[73][2019] QCA 132 at [48] and [68].

[74]See Bell v Brisbane City Council [2018] QCA 84 at [72] – [74] per McMurdo JA.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Redland City Council v King of Gifts (Qld) and HTC Consulting Pty Ltd & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Redland City Council v King of Gifts (Qld) and HTC Consulting Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2021] QCA 210

  • Court:

    QCA

  • Judge(s):

    Fraser JA, McMurdo JA, Mullins JA

  • Date:

    01 Oct 2021

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.