Trinity Park Investments Pty Ltd v Fabcot & Ors; Dexus Funds Management Limited v Fabcot Pty Ltd & Ors

[2021] QCA 276

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Environment and Planning
2. › Planning appeals
3. › Remitted hearing
4. › Leave to adduce further evidence
5. › Scope of limitations on evidence at remitted hearing
6. › Whether order wrongly excluded evidence
7. › Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld), s 63
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Interlocutory orders
4. › Practice and procedure
5. › Whether error or mistake in law identified
6. › Whether leave should be granted from interlocutory evidentiary ruling
7. › Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld), s 63
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Discretionary judgments
4. › Interlocutory orders as to practice and procedure
5. › Particular caution in reviewing such decisions
6. › Requirement to demonstrate substantial injustice
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Remitter to different judge
3. › Whether apprehension of bias established
4. › Whether prior refusal of remitter should be revisited

Quick Take

House v The King error in the exercise of a discretion does not automatically constitute 'error or mistake in law' under s 63 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld); a judge who 'mistakes the facts' commits factual rather than legal error. Identification of error or mistake in law is necessary but not sufficient for leave to appeal under s 63; applicants must also demonstrate substantial injustice, an important point of law, or a question of public importance. Applications for leave to appeal interlocutory evidentiary rulings in planning appeals face a high threshold.