Ebis Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council

[2011] QCA 15

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Environment and Planning
2. › Courts and tribunals with environmental jurisdiction
3. › Queensland
4. › Planning and Environment Court
5. › Costs
6. › Whether proceeding frivolous or vexatious
7. › Whether success on appeal alone demonstrates proceeding lacked substance
8. › Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 4.1.23(2)(b)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Statutory costs regimes
4. › Each party bears own costs unless exception established
5. › Frivolous or vexatious proceedings
6. › Onus of proof on party seeking costs order
7. › Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 4.1.23

Quick Take

Success on appeal from the Planning and Environment Court does not, by itself, establish that the proceeding below was 'frivolous or vexatious' under s 4.1.23(2)(b) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld). Where the P&E Court accepted the unsuccessful party's arguments and made the orders sought, it is difficult to conclude the proceeding lacked substance. A party seeking costs on this ground bears the onus of proof and should foreshadow the application and lead evidence in the P&E Court proceedings.