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 plaintiff and first defendant entered into a contract by which the first defendant agreed to engineer, procure and construct certain facilities for the plaintiff – where the first defendant failed to achieve mechanical completion of certain of the facilities by the date for mechanical completion under the contract – where the first defendant was paid costs it incurred performing work to complete the facilities, including costs incurred after the relevant dates for mechanical completion, by the plaintiff – where the plaintiff claims that it overpaid the first defendant sums attributable to the additional time taken to achieve mechanical completion of the facilities, on the bases that those sums were “Excluded Costs” and/or not “Actual Costs” under the contract – where the defendants say that, on the proper construction of the contract, the first defendant was entitled to be paid the costs it incurred performing work to complete the facilities, whether or not incurred after the relevant date for mechanical completion – where the defendants applied for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s “Mechanical Completion Delay Costs Claim” – whether the plaintiff has real, as opposed to fanciful, prospects of proving the claim at trial

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH – CONDITIONS – GENERAL MATTERS – where the plaintiff alleges that the defendants, in breach of two agreements entered into between the parties (the ESA and the New Agreement), failed to pay the plaintiff $810,460.49 for provision of services under those agreements – whether the defendants are indebted to the plaintiff for that amountCONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS – MATTERS NOT GIVING RISE TO BINDING CONTRACT – VAGUENESS AND UNCERTAINTY – UNCERTAIN PROMISES – where the defendants allege that the terms of the ESA did not define with precision the ‘services’ the plaintiff was required to perform to the extent that the ESA is too uncertain to be enforceable – where the defendants further allege that the terms relating to the remuneration of the plaintiff under the ESA are uncertain to the extent that the ESA is too uncertain to be enforceable – where payments were made to the plaintiff by the defendants pursuant to the ESA on a regular basis – where the defendants do not seek to recover those amounts – whether the ESA is void for uncertaintyCONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS – CONTRACTS IMPLIED FROM CONDUCT OF PARTIES – where the plaintiff alleges that the ESA ended by mutual agreement and the parties entered into another agreement (New Agreement) on similar terms – where the plaintiff continued to perform services for the defendants – where the defendants submit that there was no New Agreement but rather that the plaintiff was engaged on a “temporary basis” following the expiry of the ESA – whether the parties entered into the New Agreement – whether the terms of the New Agreement are certain so as to be enforceableESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT – PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL – PARTICULAR CASES – where the defendants allege that they were induced into entering into the ESA with the plaintiff on the basis of the plaintiff’s misrepresentations – where the defendants submit that the plaintiff should be estopped from enforcing the ESA on that basis – whether the plaintiff made the representations alleged by the defendants – whether the defendants relied upon those representations to their detrimentESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT – ACT, OMISSION OR ASSUMPTION – REPRESENTATION GENERALLY – NATURE OF REPRESENTATION – where the defendants allege that the plaintiff made representations as to his ability to sell the defendants’ property “within 3 to 6 months” – where the defendants allege that the plaintiff made representations that, if he were engaged, the defendants’ businesses could only “move forward” – whether such representations were made – whether such representations were misleading or deceptive so as to give rise to a promissory estoppelESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT – ACT, OMISSION OR ASSUMPTION – REPRESENTATION GENERALLY – ACQUIESCENCE, ENCOURAGEMENT OR SILENCE – where the defendants allege that the plaintiff had an obligation to inform them of his prior unsuccessful business dealings – where the defendants allege that the plaintiff’s failure to do so was a representation by silence that was relied on by the defendants when entering into the ESA with the plaintiff – whether the plaintiff’s silence constitutes a representation – whether such representations were misleading or deceptive so as to give rise to a promissory estoppelESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT – CAUSATION – RELIANCE – where the defendants allege that, in reliance on the plaintiff’s misrepresentations, they entered into the ESA – whether, if the alleged misrepresentations were made, the defendants relied on them – whether the defendants have shown detriment by relying on the alleged misrepresentationsTRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT OR FALSE REPRESENTATIONS – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT GENERALLY – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE: WHAT CONSTITUTES – where the defendants alleged that the plaintiff made three misleading or deceptive representations that induced them to enter into agreements with the plaintiff – whether the representations were made – whether the plaintiff engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptiveTRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES – ACTION FOR DAMAGES – LIMITATION PERIOD – WHEN CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES – where the plaintiff alleges that, even if the defendants make out a misleading or deceptive conduct claim, the limitation period prevents them from pursuing that cause of action – whether the cause of action accrues at the formation of the agreement or at a later timeTRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES – ACTION FOR DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OR AVAILABILITY OF DAMAGES – GENERALLY – where the defendants claim relief under s 237 and 243(c) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) or s 36(3) ACL, together with s 237 and 243(c) ACL – where the defendants do not seek to recover any amount against the plaintiff – where the defendants seek to apply the relief sought in the manner of a “shield” by seeking to offset any amount claimed by the plaintiff – whether the defendants are entitled to relief

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the 40 year old respondent has a significant history of sexual offending for which he has served multiple periods of imprisonment – where Jackson J, being satisfied that the respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, made orders pursuant to s 13(5)(a) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for control, care or treatment – where this is the first review of the order for the respondent’s continuing detention – where, at the time at which Jackson J made the continuing detention order, the respondent was the subject of ongoing criminal proceedings alleging, inter alia, five counts of rape committed upon his cell-mate – where as a result of those charges, the respondent has been housed in a maximum security unit and has been unable to complete recommended group sexual offender treatment programs – where a nolle prosequi has since been entered in relation to those charges – whether the decision of Jackson J, that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a Division 3 order, ought to be affirmed – whether, bearing in mind the paramountcy of the need to ensure adequate protection of the community, and the strength of the clinical evidence, it is necessary that the respondent remain subject to the continuing detention order

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff and defendants were together involved in a family farming business – where the plaintiff pleads that the business was conducted as a joint relationship, joint enterprise or joint venture for the benefit of the family as a whole, and that upon his parents’ passing, the business assets were to be owned by the plaintiff and his two brothers in equal shares – where the plaintiff pleads that following his father’s death, his mother and brother have unconscionably denied the plaintiff’s interest in the family business and its assets – where the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the business assets are held on a constructive trust – where the defendants apply to strike out the plaintiff’s pleading – where the defendants submit that the pleading is not confined to the necessary material facts and that the relief sought is not consistent with the facts alleged – whether the pleading is defective – whether the pleading should be struck out

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – APPLICATION – application for final enforcement orders compelling compliance with a lawful and functioning on-site sewage and wastewater treatment system – where current system is noncompliant with the approval – where the respondents are committing serious or material environmental harm – where enforcement orders necessary to ensure compliance

DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – where plaintiff seeks damages for non-economic loss for one defamatory publication by the defendant which made assertions about the plaintiff personally and about his business – whether an award of damages should be made

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPLICATION – DECLARATION – whether consent of the body corporate to change an application was a nullity due to the committee meeting being unlawful – whether decision notice complies with formal requirements of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) – whether noncompliance with decision notice can be excused pursuant to s 37 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) – where noncompliance should be excused.

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – OTHER MATTERS – where each of the appellants own commercial property, in the nature of a shopping centre – where each of the appellants objected to the respondent’s valuation – where the respondent declined the objections on the ground that each valuation was supported by a comparison to similar properties – where the appellants challenged the decision of the respondent in the Land Court – where the appellants appeal the decision of the Land Court on the grounds that the Member erred in adopting an approach of looking for error in advance, without detailed consideration of the valuation evidence; failed to properly consider the valuation evidence; failed to give adequate reasons and denied natural justice – whether there was error on the part of the Member in the application of the applicable test or in failing to properly consider the evidence as a whole

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 is detained under a continuing detention order for 7 years under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where applicant applied for the order to be reaffirmed under s 30 of the Act – where respondent’s treating forensic psychologist opines respondent is demonstrating positive behaviour – where reporting psychiatrists both opined that if respondent were released on supervision order there would be moderate risk of reoffending – where potential for escalation to high risk of reoffending if respondent took illicit substances or experienced stressors – whether respondent serious danger to community in absence of Division 3 order – whether adequate protection of community can be reasonably and practically managed by supervision order – whether s 16 requirements can be reasonably and practically managed by corrective services officers

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – OFFENCES – OTHER PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant, who was the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, swore complaints against each of the respondents alleging breaches of the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) (MQSHA) – where the complaints were purportedly made pursuant to a delegation to the appellant from the Director General (the chief executive) of the department – where each of the respondents filed an application in the Industrial Magistrates Court and subsequently the Industrial Court seeking an order that the complaints be struck out for want of jurisdiction – whether the appellant had power to take proceedings against the respondents – whether the specific power of authorisation in the MQSHA impliedly limited the power of delegation so the power in the chief executive could not be delegated – whether the power of the chief executive is a power capable of delegation

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of four counts of aggravated indecent treatment of a child under the age of 12 years and under care and two counts of rape – where the appellant was acquitted of two counts of rape – where counts 1 and 2 were alleged to have occurred on one occasion and counts 3 to 8 on another occasion – where the complainant gave a videorecorded interview pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and was cross-examined at a pre-recorded hearing pursuant to s 21AK of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the acquittal on count 6CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of four counts of aggravated indecent treatment of a child under the age of 12 years and under care and two counts of rape – where the appellant was acquitted of two counts of rape – where counts 1 and 2 were alleged to have occurred on one occasion and counts 3 to 8 on another occasion – where the complainant gave a videorecorded interview pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and was cross-examined at a pre-recorded hearing pursuant to s 21AK of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of counts 1, 2 and 7

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – DEPRIVING SUCCESSFUL PARTY OF COSTS – CONDUCT OF PARTY OR PROCEEDING – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff began proceedings by way of claim and statement of claim seeking injunctive relief to restrain a disciplinary process being undertaken by the defendants – where the plaintiff sought such relief on the pleaded basis that the defendants had misused confidential information and or had denied the plaintiff natural justice by refusing him access to information that might have been used to defend himself – where these claims were not successful – where the plaintiff did enjoy some success on an argument raised during the trial but which was not pleaded – where the court declared that the plaintiff had been denied natural justice in relation to the decision to suspend him during the disciplinary process – whether the plaintiff should be deprived of his costs despite his partial success

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff was a senior officer in the Rural Fire Service, a branch of the Queensland Fire and Emergency Service (“QFES”) – where the plaintiff was suspended on 3 September 2018 by the second defendant, a delegate of the first defendant, from duties pending the conclusion of a disciplinary process – where subsequently the defendants extended this period of suspension – where the defendants did not hear from the plaintiff in relation to whether he should be suspended or, thereafter, whether the suspension should continue – where the plaintiff was denied access to his work computer and mobile phone preventing him from accessing his emails and diaries – where the plaintiff was denied access to other employees who might have had knowledge of the events the subject of the disciplinary process – whether the defendants denied the plaintiff natural justice by failing to afford him access to material which might have informed his response to the allegations of misconduct – whether determining if natural justice has been afforded would be premature in circumstances where the disciplinary process has not concluded – whether the defendants were under an obligation to afford the plaintiff natural justice when deciding whether or not he should be suspendedINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION – OBLIGATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY – where the plaintiff was tasked with performing informing counselling services to a fellow employee, XY – where XY surreptitiously recorded the plaintiff and XY’s telephone conversations – where during these telephone conversations the plaintiff allegedly disclosed confidential information, made rude remarks denigrating his manager and suggested he would corrupt an employee selection panel – where the recordings were brought to the attention of the QFES because of XYs WorkCover claim – where a referral was made by a member of the QFES’ Ethical Standards Unit to the Crime and Corruption Commission – where the Crime and Corruption Commission considered it appropriate the QFES “deal with” the alleged misconduct – whether the QFES’ use of the recordings should be restrained because they constitute unconscionable misuse of confidential information – whether the conversations involved information that was imparted in circumstances importing an equitable obligation of confidence

COSTS – APPLICATION FOR COSTS – where the applicants each sought relief under s 43 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) – where the substantive relief sought was uncontroversial – where the respondent seeks its costs of the applications – where the applicants contend that there be no orders made as to costs up to and including the hearing of the application on 29 September 2020 but that the respondent pay the applicants’ costs of and incidental to the hearing on 30 September 2020 which was substantially about costs – where the parties had previously been corresponding about a potential consent order granting the substantive relief with no order as to costs – where the respondent informed the applicants on the evening prior to the return date for the applications that it held instructions to seek costs – where the respondent contends that its change of attitude in relation to costs was due to the fact that the applications were not able to be dealt with on the papers – where the applications could not be heard on the return date due to the late notice given by the respondent that it was seeking costs and the late service of material by the respondent – where a further appearance was required by counsel for the applicants to consider the respondent’s costs application – where the costs orders sought by the applicants should be made

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 is the subject of a supervision order under s 13(5)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where the respondent contravened the order – whether, despite that contravention, the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the existing supervision order

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the applicant applies for an order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 – where the applicant submits that the respondent be detained in custody for an indefinite term for care, control or treatment – where the applicant alternatively submits, and the respondent agrees, that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent’s release on a supervision order for a period of ten years – where the evidence is that the respondent would be at high risk of reoffending if released into the community without a supervision order – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the release of the respondent on a supervision order

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the applicant applies for an order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 – where the applicant submits, and the respondent agrees, that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent’s release on a supervision order for a period of 10 years – where the evidence is that the respondent would be at high risk of reoffending if released into the community without a supervision order – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the release of the respondent on a supervision order

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where the applicant applies for an order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 – where the applicant submits, and the respondent agrees, that the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the respondent’s release on a supervision order for a period of five years – where the evidence is that the respondent now suffers from significant physical disabilities due to medical conditions that reduce the risk of committing a serious sexual offence if released from custody without a supervision order – where the evidence of the reporting psychiatrists’ is that the respondent would be at moderate to high risk of reoffending if released into the community without a supervision order were it not for his physical medical comorbidities – whether the adequate protection of the community can be ensured by the release of the respondent on a supervision order

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL COSTS FUND – POWER TO GRANT INDEMNITY CERTIFICATE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where the respondent submitted that it ought to be granted an indemnity certificate under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) – where the appeal succeeded on the basis of an error of the primary judge which may be characterised as an error of law – where the conduct of the respondent below is relevant to the discretion as to whether to exercise the discretion to grant a certificate – whether an indemnity certificate should be granted

TORTS – PERSONAL INJURIES – LIABILITY – whether the occupier of premises failed to provide or maintain adequate lighting to entrance of premises – where carpark lights were not working – where lighting was adequate – where plaintiff’s fall was caused by her own inattention – where defendant not liable – where claim dismissed