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 conceded that adequate
protection of the community could be ensured by a supervision
order under Division 3 Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) – where the
respondent conceded the need for a supervision order under
Division 3 Part 2 of the Act – whether the respondent presents
a serious danger to the community in the absence of a
supervision order under Division 3 Part 2 of the Act – whether
such an order should be made

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – where the parties did not file or serve written submissions in respect of costs, having been given the opportunity to do soCRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES AND MATTERS – PERSONATING OFFICIALS – where the plaintiff commissioned a stamp which bore the words “Commonwealth of Australia 1955 Public Official” and endorsed his filed court documents therewith – where this appeared to impersonate a Commonwealth public official – whether the Court ought refer the matter to the Commonwealth and or State Attorneys General

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS –– GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where the plaintiff applied for recusal of the supervising judge on the grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias – where the recusal application was refused – where the supervising judge decided not to continue in that role in the interests of justice for all parties in the proceeding – whether costs should follow the event

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – SENTENCE – driving offences – dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death – not momentary inattention – very short period of distraction

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE – where the Council gave the appellant an enforcement notice alleging the commission of a development offence under s 163 of the Planning Act 2016 – where the nature of the alleged offence was the importation of approximately 10 000 cubic metres of fill without a development approval – where the land is located within an Flood and Inundation Area under the planning scheme – where the enforcement notice did not refer to the type of development alleged to have been carried out, namely operational works – where the enforcement notice did not refer to provisions of the planning scheme triggering the need for a development permit – where the enforcement notice did not specify the dates, times or period of times on which the alleged development offence was committed – where the enforcement notice gave approximately three months to remove 10 000 cubic metres of fill and reinstate the land to natural ground level – whether the enforcement notice failed to comply with the obligation to state the nature of the alleged offence – whether it was unreasonable to require the appellant to remove the fill – whether the timeframes for the removal of the fill were too short having regard to the volume of fillPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT ORDERS – where the Council applies for enforcement orders requiring the removal of 10 000 cubic metres of fill – where the Council alleges the commission of a development offence under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and a development offence under the Planning Act 2016 – whether the Court has jurisdiction to make an enforcement order about an offence under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 – whether the alleged development offences have been committed – whether, in the exercise of the court’s discretion, the enforcement order should be made

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING OF JUVENILES – application for sentence review – where the applicant had previously been sentenced to detention to be served by way of conditional release order – where sentencing option of intensive supervision order not raised in pre-sentence report or by legal representatives when should have been – where conditional release order excessive in the circumstances

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR
DEFENCE – applications to strike out the claim and statement of claim in their entirety, or alternatively parts of them, on the basis no reasonable cause of action disclosed or that the pleading has a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceedingPROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – SECURITY FOR COSTS – AMOUNT AND NATURE OF SECURITY – where the
parties agree that security for the applicant/defendants’ costs is to be provided, but are in dispute as to the amount of security to be provided for two defendants, and as to the form of security to be provided – where the plaintiff proposed security in the form of a deed of indemnity between a foreign third party insurer of the plaintiff’s litigation funder and the applicants for security – whether the form of security proposed is adequate and does not impose unacceptable disadvantage on the applicants

https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QMHC/2018/12

CORPORATIONS – PREFERENCES AND VOIDABLE TRANSACTIONS – where payments were made to the defendant while the company was insolvent – whether two of the payments were converted from unsecured to secured debts – whether these two payments were unfair preference payments under s 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)CORPORATIONS – WINDING UP – CONDUCT AND INCIDENTS OF WINDING UP – EFFECT OF WINDING UP ON OTHER TRANSACTIONS – PROTECTED TRANSACTIONS – DEALINGS IN GOOD FAITH – whether the transactions were made in good faith within the meaning of s 588FG(2) – whether reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency – where delay in payments – where statutory demand and winding up application

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the appellant withdrew its application under the Land Valuation Act 2010 – where the respondent sought the costs of an application for further disclosure, the costs of which had been reserved –where the respondent applied “cumulatively, but also alternately” for costs under s 34 of the Land Court Act 2000, r 18 of the Land Court Rules 2000, and s 171 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 – where the Court found costs of any aspect of an appeal under the Land Valuation Act 2010 are governed by s 171 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 – whether the appellant failed to comply with procedural requirements – whether the appellant failed to discharge its responsibilities in the appeal – where the Court dismissed the application for costs

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the respondent imposed a financial penalty on the applicant – where the applicant applied to the Land Court of Queensland for an injunction pending an internal review of the decision – where the Land Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the application – where both parties sought an order for costs – where the Court ordered that each party must bear their own costs