ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – BUILDING CONTROL – OTHER MATTERS – where the first and second respondents constructed a building and used it as an ‘accommodation building’ in a zone where this use was not permitted – where respondents accepted this use of the building amounted to development offences – where council sought enforcement orders preventing any further unlawful use of the building including to bring about significant interior structural changes – where respondents contested the orders sought by council – what orders ought be made to ensure compliance with the legislative scheme

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –GENERAL PRINCIPLES – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was charged with 10 counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years and one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with a circumstance of aggravation – where the appellant was convicted on all but one of these counts – where the appellant submits that the jury’s guilty verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory – where the appellant points to inconsistencies in the evidence relating to counts 3 and 4, inconsistencies in the complainant’s preliminary complaints and submits that her evidence was inherently unreliable due to the complainant receiving hypnotherapy – whether the jury’s guilty verdicts were unsafe or unsatisfactoryCRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where a pretextual phone call between the complainant and the appellant was tendered as evidence at trial – where the appellant submits that a miscarriage of justice has been occasioned by the failure of the learned trial judge to direct the jury as to the use they could make of “the confessional statements” – whether the learned trial judge misdirected the jury

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the respondent was subject to examination by psychiatrists for the purposes of the application – where the applicant sought orders that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control or treatment – where the applicant sought, in the alternative, that the respondent be released from custody subject to such a supervision order – where the applicant conceded that it was open on the evidence that adequate protection of the community could be ensured by a supervision order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (DPSO Act) – where the respondent conceded the need for a supervision order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the DPSO Act – whether the applicant presents a serious danger to the community in the absence of a supervision order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the DPSO Act – whether such an order should be made

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DISCRETION NOT TO ENTERTAIN APPLICATION – GENERALLY – where the applicant was charged with minor offences in the Magistrates Court – where orders were made of an administrative and logistical nature to advance the proceeding – where the applicant complained about how he was named in documents produced for the purpose of the Magistrates Court proceeding – where the applicant complained about the alleged absence of jurisdiction over his “juristic person” – where the applicant brought judicial review proceedings attempting to agitate these complaints before the Supreme Court – whether it is inappropriate to allow the application to continue because it is frivolous or vexatious – whether adequate provision is made for review other than under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the Land Court determined compensation payable by the applicant in respect of a mining lease over the respondent’s land – where the applicant offered to settle before hearing – where the applicant claims costs on an indemnity basis – whether the respondent’s conduct justifies the award of indemnity costs

INSURANCE – GENERALLY – OTHER MATTERS – where a separate question for determination before trial is whether a contract of insurance is governed by the Marine Insurance Act or the Insurance Contracts Act – where the Insurance Contracts Act excludes from its operation contracts of insurance to which the Marine Insurance Act applies – where the Insurance Contracts Act allows disaggregation of one contract of insurance into separate groups of provisions such that the exclusion provisions of that Act apply to each group of provisions separately rather than the contract of insurance as a whole – where the plaintiff entered into a contract with the Commonwealth for the design, manufacture and supply of a fleet of boats and the subsequent provision of in-service support for them – where the plaintiff entered into a primary layer policy and excess layer policy with the defendants to insure various categories of liability the plaintiff might have pursuant to its contract with the Commonwealth – where one category of liability insured by the excess layer policy included the plaintiff’s liability as a ship-repairer – how the excess layer policy should be disaggregated into groups of provisions – whether the relevant group of provisions should be characterised as a contract of insurance against losses incident to maritime adventure to which the Marine Insurance Act applies

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – APPEAL – submitter appeal against council’s approval of a development application seeking development permit for material change of use for a club – whether the proposed development complies with the planning scheme – whether the proposed development is suitably located – whether the proposed development will have unacceptable impacts on matters of environmental significance, ecologically important areas and visual amenity – whether other relevant matters support approval or refusal of the proposed development

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT: STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiffs brought proceedings to set aside a judgment of this court which they allege was obtained by fraud – where the defendants apply for summary judgment against the plaintiffs on the basis that the proceeding is an abuse of process and/or no cause of action is shown – where, in the alternative, the defendants apply to strike out the statement of claim – whether there is a proper evidentiary basis from which fraud could be inferred – whether the proceeding has any real prospect of success – whether there should be summary judgment for the defendantsPROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – AMENDING, VARYING AND SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – ACTION TO REVIEW OR SET ASIDE JUDGMENT OR ORDER – WHERE FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION OR SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS ¬– where the plaintiffs brought proceedings to set aside a judgment of this court which they allege was obtained by fraud – whether there were two related companies with the same name, one of which was deregistered at the relevant time – where what is effectively pleaded is that by a conspiracy between the defendants the previous proceedings have been prosecuted at trial and defended on appeal in the name of a deregistered company based on security documents bearing the name of the deregistered company – whether there is any evidentiary basis to find that the judgment was obtained by fraud

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the Defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis that she failed to provide the necessaries of life to the deceased child – where the deceased died as a result of the deliberate infliction of blunt trauma, delivered with force, on two separate occasions – where the Crown did not establish, to the requisite high standard, that the two applications of force to the deceased were delivered by the Defendant – where the Defendant was to be sentenced on one count of manslaughter on the basis of the plea of guilty

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – where appeal against respondent’s decision to refuse a change application for a minor change under s 78 of the Planning Act 2016 – where appellant sought an order that the appeal proceed to be heard and determined on the basis of a changed change application – whether a change can be made to a change application – whether the changes to the change application can be approved by way of conditions under s 81A of the Planning Act 2016.

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – where respondent granted a conditional development approval for a material change of use for a poultry farm – where respondent gave an Infrastructure charges notice for the approved development – where appeal against conditions of the development approval– where appeal against decision to give the Infrastructure charges notice – whether the court has power to impose a condition on the development approval limiting the route of travel for all vehicle movements to and from the use – whether a condition limiting the route of travel for all vehicle movements to and from the use should be imposed in the exercise of the discretion – whether the respondent’s Infrastructure charges notice involved an error relating to the working out of extra demand for s 120 of the Planning Act 2016.

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – where appeal against decision to refuse a code assessable development application to partially demolish, rotate and reposition a dwelling house constructed prior to 1911 – where dwelling house traditional building character – whether development application complies with the Traditional building character (demolition) code in the respondent’s planning scheme – whether the development application should be approved where non-compliance established with the planning scheme.

APPLICATION – Removal of absolute driver licence disqualification per s 131(10) of the Transport Operation (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld)

MAGISTRATES COURT – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS – PEACE AND GOOD BEHAVIOUR COMPLAINT– where complaint did not disclose a cause of action – where issue of summons was not authorised – where insufficient particularsABUSE OF PROCESS – where scandalous allegations without evidence – where undue delay – where fishing expedition

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – FINES – AMOUNT – where the appellant attached himself to a tripod suspended over a rail line to protest against the impact of climate change and the lack of action being taken to address it – where the appellant was charged with trespass of a railway, interference of a railway and contravention of a police direction – where the sentence of the Acting Magistrate consisted of total fines of $7,000 – where it is agreed a fine of $3,000 is appropriateCRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – RESTITUTION ORDERS – where the appellant attached himself to a tripod suspended over a rail line to protest against the impact of climate change and the lack of action being taken to address it – where the appellant was charged with trespass of a railway, interference of a railway and contravention of a police direction – whether the court should order the appellant pay compensation pursuant to s 35 of the Penalties and Sentence Act 1992 (Qld) for the hire of a cherry picker to dismantle a tripod erected by the appellant and the wages of a crew to remove the protestorCRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY – where the appellant is a recidivist protestor against climate change – where the appellant submits climate change poses an imminent and ongoing threat to civilisation – where the appellant submits he is excused from criminal responsibility pursuant to Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 25 “Extraordinary emergencies”

UNQUALIFIED PERSONS AND DISQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS – ACTING FOR PARTY – plaintiff sought leave for lay advocate to appear on his behalf at trial – lay advocate had obtained legal qualifications but was not admitted to the legal profession – defendant opposed the application on the basis that the lay advocate was not a proper person and was not of proper character – whether it is contrary to the interests of justice, the proper administration of justice and the protection of parties in litigation to grant leave – whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff to have a McKenzie friend

DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT – QUANTUM – where plaintiff suffered personal injuries where car rear-ended another – where liability admitted – assessment of damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – ISV assessment – where assessment of general damages, past and future economic loss in issue – where future earning capacity is in issue – where causation is in issue

https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QSC/2020/381

CORPORATIONS – WINDING UP – WINDING UP IN INSOLVENCY – WHAT CONSTITUTES INSOLVENCY – EVIDENCE OF INSOLVENCY – where the applicants commenced proceedings against 29 respondents seeking declarations that certain payments made to them by the first applicant were unfair preferences – where the court ordered that a preliminary question be determined before the trial of the principal proceedings – whether the first applicant was insolvent on and from 23 June 2016 to 22 December 2016PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – ISSUES AND COUNTERCLAIMS – OTHER PARTICULAR CASES – where a preliminary question was ordered – where the respondents were given an opportunity to make an election as to whether to admit the preliminary question by 13 November 2020 – where the third and fifth respondents admitted the preliminary question within the allocated time – where the liquidator changed his position a number of times regarding costs – where the applicants seek an order that the third and fifth respondents pay the applicants’ costs of determining the preliminary question up until the date on which the third and fifth respondents admitted the first applicant’s insolvency – whether costs, with respect to the third and fifth respondents, should be the applicants’ costs in the cause

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – SEPARATE DECISION OR DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS AND CONSOLIDATION OF PROCEEDINGS – SEPARATE DECISION OR DETERMINATION – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff and defendants are in dispute about amounts paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant pursuant to a contract for the engineering, procurement and construction of certain facilities – where the dispute is complex and the quantum of the plaintiff’s claims is in excess of $1.4 billion – where it is estimated that a trial of the claims would take between six and nine months – where the plaintiff has applied for an order that the questions “raised on the pleadings as amended from time to time” be referred to three referees to conduct an inquiry into, and prepare a report to the Court on, those questions – where the defendants oppose the making of such an order, primarily on the bases that r 501 of the UCPR does not allow the Court to “refer out the whole proceeding” and that making a referral would not, in any event, be an appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion – whether r 501 allows the Court to refer all of the questions in a proceeding to a referee or referees – whether referring all or some of the questions in this proceeding to three referees would facilitate the just and expeditious resolution of the real issues in the proceeding at a minimum of expense