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.
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.
Page of 11
CITE
Unreported Judgment
Appeal Determined (QCA)
Bushland Grove Pty Ltd v Townsville City Council[2011] QPEC 84Baulch DCJ
Please Note: A project is currently underway to digitise this judgment to enhance its onscreen presentation. For now, the original version of this judgment may be viewed onscreen and downloaded as a text-analysed and searchable PDF document.
Click here for more information.
Word Highlighter:
Original Version Loading (as on screen PDF)
Preparing document for printing…
Editorial Notes
Published Case Name:
Bushland Grove Pty Ltd t/a Mount Low Developments v Townsville City Council and Sunland Group Limited
Shortened Case Name:
Bushland Grove Pty Ltd v Townsville City Council
MNC:
[2011] QPEC 84
Court:
QPEC
Judge(s):
Baulch DCJ
Date:
23 Jun 2011
Litigation History
Event
Citation or File
Date
Notes
Primary Judgment
[2011] QPEC 84
23 Jun 2011
The Planning and Environment Court allowed an appeal by Bushland Grove Pty Ltd against a decision of the Townsville City Council, approving an application by Sunland for a material change of use to facilitate development of a “Neighbourhood Centre” within the meaning of that term in the City of Thuringowa Planning Scheme: Baulch SC, DCJ.
QCA Interlocutory Judgment
[2012] QCA 72 [2012] QPELR 500
27 Mar 2012
The second respondent was granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) with respect to the costs ordered to be paid to the applicant and with respect to its own costs of the appeal: Muir JA, Fraser JA, M Wilson AJA.
Appeal Determined (QCA)
[2012] QCA 30 [2012] QPELR 449
28 Feb 2012
Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Set aside the orders of the Planning and Environment Court made on 23 June 2011. The matter was remitted to the Planning and Environment Court to be determined according to law by a judge other than the primary judge. The second respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s and the first respondent’s costs of the appeal: Muir JA, Fraser JA, M Wilson AJA.
