The fact that a party's arguments are ultimately rejected on appeal, even after detailed analysis, does not of itself render those arguments frivolous or vexatious for the purposes of s 4.1.23(2)(b) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), particularly where the arguments were accepted by the primary judge and supported by some evidence. A council's reliance on 'technical arguments' that are not unreasonable does not constitute a failure to properly discharge its responsibilities under s 4.1.23(2)(i).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.