Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment
  • Appeal Determined (QCA)

Gerhardt v Brisbane City Council (No. 2)[2016] QPEC 50

Gerhardt v Brisbane City Council (No. 2)[2016] QPEC 50

 

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT OF  QUEENSLAND

 

CITATION:

Gerhardt v Brisbane City Council (No. 2) [2016] QPEC 50

PARTIES:

TREVOR WILLIAM GERHARDT

Applicant

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

2023/16

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment Court

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

DELIVERED ON:

5 October 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers, following judgment delivered on 16 September 2016

JUDGE:

Bowskill QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.  The application is dismissed.

2.  No order as to costs.

COUNSEL:

P Smith for the Applicant (direct brief)

N Kefford for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Brisbane City Legal Practice for the Respondent

  1. [1]
    On 16 September 2016 I delivered my reasons for refusing the declaratory relief which Mr Gerhardt had sought under s 456 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009Gerhardt v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPEC 48.
  2. [2]
    At the end of my reasons I indicated that I thought the appropriate order was simply that Mr Gerhardt’s application be dismissed.  But because I had indicated at the hearing that I would give the parties time to consider my reasons before making final orders, I did not make the order at that time.
  3. [3]
    I have now heard from the parties.  The Council submits the appropriate order is that the application be dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.  Mr Gerhardt submits that the appropriate orders are, firstly, an order that the declarations sought by Mr Gerhardt are refused; secondly, a positive declaration in terms of the construction which I ultimately reached of the relevant provisions (summarised in [100] of the reasons); and consistently with the Council, that there be no order for costs.
  4. [4]
    The reasons advanced on behalf of Mr Gerhardt as to why a declaration, in terms of part of [100] of the reasons, ought to be made, is that this will “provide a clear, concise and unambiguous direction to Mr Gerhardt and indeed other private certifiers, local governments and others who may be following the progress of” this and other recent court decisions involving Mr Gerhardt.
  5. [5]
    I am not satisfied that is an appropriate justification for making a declaration in the terms sought by Mr Gerhardt. 
  6. [6]
    Section 456 of the Planning Act confers jurisdiction to hear and decide a proceeding brought by a person seeking a declaration about, inter alia, a matter to be done for the Planning Act, or the construction of the Planning Act or a planning instrument.   Mr Gerhardt made such an application.  I have heard and determined his application, and refused to grant the declarations he sought, on the basis of the reasons.   I do not consider it necessary or appropriate, in those circumstances, to fashion an alternative declaration, reflecting in part the conclusion I reached in refusing the relief sought by Mr Gerhardt.  The reasons speak for themselves, and indeed require consideration in full because the particular factual and legal matrix is important.  I would not wish a declaration, in terms of one part of what is a summary at the end of complex reasons, to be taken out of context. 
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Gerhardt v Brisbane City Council (No. 2)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Gerhardt v Brisbane City Council (No. 2)

  • MNC:

    [2016] QPEC 50

  • Court:

    QPEC

  • Judge(s):

    Bowskill DCJ

  • Date:

    05 Oct 2016

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary Judgment[2016] QPEC 4816 Sep 2016Application seeking declarations under s 456 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 dismissed: Bowskill QC DCJ.
Primary Judgment[2016] QPEC 5005 Oct 2016Form of Orders and Costs. Application dismissed and no order as to costs: Bowskill QC DCJ.
QCA Interlocutory Judgment[2016] QCA 27227 Oct 2016Application for an order staying the orders made in [2016] QPEC 50 refused: Gotterson JA.
Notice of Appeal FiledFile Number: Appeal 10289/1607 Oct 2016-
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2017] QCA 28517 Nov 2017Application for leave to appeal refused: Fraser and Morrison JJA and Flanagan J.

Appeal Status

Appeal Determined (QCA)

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Gerhardt v Brisbane City Council [2016] QPEC 48
1 citation

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Gerhardt v Brisbane City Council [2017] QCA 285 2 citations
1

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.