Townsville CC & Anor v Dpt Main Roads

[2005] QCA 226

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Real Property
2. › Crown Lands
3. › Queensland
4. › Resumption
5. › Compensation
6. › Before and after basis
7. › Difference in development costs
8. › Rehearing application under s 12 Land Court Act 2000 (Qld)
9. › Whether Land Court erred in refusing rehearing without considering impact on merits
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Rehearing
3. › Discretion to grant rehearing
4. › Relevant considerations
5. › Whether potential impact on outcome is a mandatory consideration
6. › Whether misapprehension must be patent on face of record
7. › Whether fault of applicant is condition precedent
8. › Land Court Act 2000 (Qld), ss 7, 12
1. Statutes
2. › Interpretation
3. › Particular words and phrases
4. › Equity good conscience and the substantial merits of the case
5. › Whether provision widens or restricts discretion
6. › Whether merits of case must be considered in exercising rehearing discretion
7. › Land Court Act 2000 (Qld), s 7
1. Evidence
2. › Cross-examination
3. › Rule in Browne v Dunn
4. › Expert witnesses
5. › Whether failure to cross-examine expert on criticism already in evidence precluded reliance on that criticism
6. › Distinction between attacking credibility and attacking reliability of opinion

Quick Take

When exercising the discretion to grant a rehearing under s 12 of the Land Court Act 2000 (Qld), the Land Court must consider the potential impact of the alleged misapprehension on the merits of its decision; it cannot refuse a rehearing without doing so. The concept of 'misapprehension' under s 12 is not confined to errors patent on the face of the record, and proof of an entirely blame-free error is not a condition precedent to the grant of leave. The rule in Browne v Dunn does not require cross-examination of an expert witness on a criticism already clearly in evidence through a written report.