MacKenzie v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines

Case [2005] QLC 47


LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: MacKenzie v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines  [2005] QLC 0047
PARTIES: David James MacKenzie
(applicant)
v.
Minister for Natural Resources and Mines
(respondent)
FILE NO: LA2005/0029
DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING: In the matter of an appeal under Section 428 of the Land act 1994 in relation to the decision of the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines to refuse a tree clearing application over Lot 1884 on PH 204, parish of Khyber being PPH 10/1884.
DELIVERED ON: 15 September 2005
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD: On the papers without an oral hearing:  Rule 36 of the Land Court Rules 2000
MEMBER: The President
ORDERS:

1.      The appeal is discontinued.

2.      The parties are to bear their own costs.

CATCHWORDS: Practice and Procedure - Appeal against refusal of application for tree clearing permit - Requirements for valid appeal - Discontinuance - Land Act 1994
SUBMISSIONS BY: Mr P Sheridan for the applicant
Mr M Heather for the respondent
  1. On 4 April 2005, Mr DJ MacKenzie appealed against a refusal of an application to clear vegetation on Lot 1884, Plan PH204, in the local government area of Murweh. The right of appeal is provided for in s.263 of the Land Act 1994.

  2. However, s.422 of that Act provides:

    "Every appeal against a decision (an 'original decision') under this Act must be, in the first instance, by way of an application for internal review.  It is only on completion of that internal review process that an appellant may appeal to the Land Court against the 'review decision':  s.426."

  3. The legal representative of the respondent raised the point that the appeal was incompetent as no internal review decision had been given to the appellant before his Notice of Appeal was filed in the Land Court.

  4. This matter was set down for hearing of this initial question at Roma on 4 October 2005.  However, following further developments in this matter the appeal was discontinued by consent.

Order

1.The appeal is discontinued by consent of the parties.

2.  The parties are to bear their own costs.

JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT

Details
AGLC
MacKenzie v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 47
Case
[2005] QLC 47
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of MacKenzie v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines involves an appeal against the refusal of an application for a tree clearing permit by the applicant, MacKenzie, under the Land Act 1994. The decision to refuse the permit was made by the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, who is the respondent in this matter. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the appeal process and the subsequent refusal of the permit.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal against the Minister's decision was validly brought, given that the applicant did not comply with certain procedural requirements outlined in the Land Act 1994. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the appeal was lodged within the requisite time frame and whether the necessary documentation and fees were correctly submitted. Another aspect of the case was the consideration of whether the application for a permit was within the jurisdiction of the court.

The court found that the applicant had not adhered to the statutory requirements for lodging an appeal, as stipulated by the Land Act 1994. The court held that the appeal was invalid due to these procedural shortcomings. As a result, the appeal was discontinued, and the applicant was directed to bear their own costs. The court also noted that the respondent was to bear their own costs, effectively ensuring that neither party would receive financial support from the other in relation to the appeal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is discontinued.

2. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.