General Civil Appeal – Statutes – Acts of parliament – Interpretation – Particular words and phrases – Specific interpretations – where land was acquired by the Albert Shire Council for a rubbish depot – where Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld), s 41 provides that where an authority has acquired land under the Act and seven years after the acquisition the authority “no longer requires” the land it must be offered for sale to the original owner – where interpretation of “no longer requires the land” is a question of law – whether the Council no longer required the land within seven years is a question of fact – meaning of the phrase “no longer requires” – Resumption or acquisition of land – Powers of resumption – Under statute – Conditions and limitations – Particular statutes – Queensland – where land was acquired by the Albert Shire Council for a rubbish depot – where Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld) provides that where an authority has acquired land under the Act and seven years after the acquisition the authority “no longer requires” the land it must be offered for sale to the original owner – whether Council “no longer require[d]” the land – HELD: Appeal dismissed, The appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil) - General Civil Appeal - Trade and Commerce – Other Regulation of Trade or Commerce – Statutory Regulation of Particular Matters – Miscellaneous Statutory Regulation – where the appellants carried on the business of providing financial services to the public – where the respondent requested from the appellants information about an advertised investment opportunity – where the appellants sent the respondent the information memorandum for the investment accompanied by a cover letter from the appellants – where the appellants' cover letter misstated the security of the investment – whether the conduct of the appellants was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive – Torts – Negligence – Essentials of Action for Negligence – Duty of Care – Special Relationships and Duties – Professional Persons – where the appellants carried on the business of providing financial services to the public – where the appellants misstated the security of an investment opportunity in correspondence sent to the respondent – whether the misstatement amounted to negligent conduct on the part of the appellants – whether reliance by the respondent upon information provided by the appellants was reasonable – Procedure Supreme Court Procedure – Queensland – Jurisdiction and Generally – where the trial judge admitted into evidence the report of an expert witness – where the report was tendered without objection from the appellants – where the appellants claim that the matters addressed by the report had not been pleaded – whether the trial judge erred in admitting the report in to evidence – Procedure – Costs – Costs of Whole Action – Where Money Paid into Court or Offer of Compromise Made – where the respondent made an early offer to settle the action for a sum significantly less than that amount later awarded to him at trial – where at the time of making the offer the respondent had not disclosed documentation later relied upon to support an important aspect of the respondent's case – whether the trial judge erred in refusing the respondent's application for indemnity costs pursuant to r 360 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – HELD: Appeal dismissed with costs; Application dismissed with costs

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil) – Appeal and New Trial – Appeal – Practice and Procedure – Queensland – When Appeal Lies – By Leave of Court – Generally – where the applicant is a proprietor of licensed premises in Townsville – where the applicant conducts takeaway liquor businesses under general licences – where the respondent imposed a condition on general licences in Townsville that prohibited the sale of takeaway liquor prior to 10 am – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the District Court under s 118(3) District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – whether there was an error of law in the decision of the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal – whether the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed – Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Grounds of Review – Error of Law – where the respondent imposed a condition on the applicant’s general licences that prohibited the sale of takeaway liquor prior to 10 am – where the District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal – where the appeal to the Tribunal against the respondent’s decision was by way of re-hearing of the evidence – where the authority must act in good faith and not act arbitrarily or capriciously – where the Tribunal was not bound by the rules of evidence – where the discretions conferred upon the respondent by s 107C(1)(c) and s 107C(1)(d) Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) were unconfined – whether the Tribunal breached its duty by making a decision based on findings of fact that were unsupported by probative material – whether the Tribunal erred in law as there was insufficient evidence to sustain the Tribunal’s findings in relation to s 107C(1)(c) and s 107C(1)(d) Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) – Liquor Law – Licensing – Other Matters – where the respondent imposed a condition on the applicant’s general licences that prohibited the sale of takeaway liquor prior to 10 am – where the condition was imposed for a period of six months after which a review of the decision was to be made – whether the decision to impose the condition was for a “trial period” which was beyond the respondent’s power - where the respondent imposed a condition on the applicant’s general licences that prohibited the sale of takeaway liquor prior to 10 am – whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that the condition imposed by the respondent was properly directed to the minimisation of alcohol related disturbances and harm within the terms of s 107C(1)(c) and s 107C(1)(d) Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) – HELD: Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

General Civil Appeal - Appeal and New Trial – Appeal – General Principles – Interference with Discretion of Court Below – In General – Wrong Principle – Particular Cases – Other Cases – where s 57(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) gave the court a discretion to grant leave to bring a proceeding based on a motor vehicle accident claim notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period – where the trial judge restricted the favourable exercise of the discretion to cases where the delay was caused by attempts by the appellant to comply with the Act – whether the trial judge acted on a wrong principle by holding that in order to be granted leave it was necessary for the appellant to demonstrate that her delay was occasioned by attempts to comply with the Act – Insurance – Third-Party Liability Insurance – Motor Vehicles – Compulsory Insurance Legislation – Other Cases – Queensland – where s 57(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) gave the court a discretion to grant leave to bring a proceeding based on a motor vehicle accident claim notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period – where the trial judge had acted on wrong principle – where it was necessary to exercise the discretion afresh – where there had been a significant delay in the proceedings – where the plaintiff had relied upon her solicitor to progress her claim – where the delay was largely attributable to the inaction of the appellant’s solicitor who was mentally incapacitated – where the appellant retained new solicitors – where the solicitors pursued the appellant’s former solicitor and not the respondents – where the appellant’s new solicitors later sought to progress the claim against the respondents – analysis of the enquiry to be made and of the factors relevant to exercising the discretion conferred by s 57(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) – HELD: Appeal dismissed with costs

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil) – Professions and Trades – Auctioneers and Agents – Construction of Statutory Provisions – Queensland – Licences – where the respondent is a licensed real estate agent – where the respondent was found to have, on two occasions, contravened s 145 of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) by obtaining a beneficial interest in a property placed with her for sale – where the District Court overturned the decision to cancel the respondent's real estate agent's licence, imposing in lieu thereof fines for the offending conduct – whether the respondent is a "suitable person" to hold a real estate agent's licence – whether the offending conduct justified the cancellation of the respondent's real estate agent's licence – HELD: Application for leave to appeal granted, Appeal allowed, Orders made by the District Court set aside; and in lieu thereof it is ordered that the appeal to the District Court be dismissed, Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and the appeal, and of the proceedings in the District Court, to be assessed on the standard basis

Sentence Application – Criminal Law – Appeal and New Trial and Inquiry – Appeal and New Trial – Appeal Against Sentence – Grounds for Interference – Disparity – Co-Offenders - – where applicant and her boyfriend (who was her co-offender) planned to murder her parents – where plan was thwarted only when applicant's father struggled with and overpowered co-offender – where applicant and co-offender both pleaded guilty to attempted murder and conspiracy to murder – where applicant was sentenced to detention for four years for attempted murder and two years for conspiracy to murder, with an order that she be released after two years – where co-offender was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for attempted murder, five years imprisonment for conspiracy to murder and one year cumulative imprisonment for armed robbery – where co-offender was an adult at the time of the offences and so was sentenced under the Penalties and Sentences Act while applicant was a juvenile and was sentenced under the Juvenile Justice Act – where sentencing judge said the co-offender 'could justifiably feel aggrieved were the effect of his punishment to be inappropriately grossly disproportionate' to the applicant's – whether parity is an appropriate consideration when co-offenders fall to be sentenced under different statutory regimes – whether trial judge erred by giving too much weight to issues of parity - where applicant was sentenced to detention for four years for attempted murder and two years for conspiracy to murder, with an order that she be released after two years – where attempt to murder parents did not result in major injury to either parent – where applicant was 15 years old, mentally unwell and irrational at the time of the offences – where applicant suffered psychological trauma after being raped at the age of 13 – where applicant subsequently felt remorse and guilt – where detention would be particularly challenging for applicant – where applicant had good prospects of rehabilitation – whether sentence imposed was for the least time justified in the circumstances – HELD: Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted, Appeal allowed, Vary the sentence imposed on count 1 by ordering that the applicant be detained for two and a half years, Under s 227(2) Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), the applicant is to be released after serving 15 months of her detention, Otherwise confirm the sentence imposed.

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence – Criminal Law – Appeal and New Trial and Inquiry after Conviction – Appeal and New Trial – Particular Grounds – Misdirection and Non-Direction – Other Matters - where appellant convicted of entering premises and stealing as a s 7 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) party – where appellant’s son, who was a party to the offence, pleaded guilty, gave a written undertaking under s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) to co-operate with law enforcement authorities, and was given a non-custodial sentence – where appellant was convicted wholly on the basis of evidence given by her son – where appellant’s son would have been liable to re-sentencing and a custodial sentence if he did not maintain the version of events he provided in the s 13A statement in court – where jury instructed as to incentive to appellant’s son to give evidence inculpating the appellant – where jury not apprised of imperative for appellant’s son not only to give, but also to maintain, his version of events – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred by way of the failure to adduce evidence as to imperative for appellant’s son to maintain his version of events – Unreasonable or Insupportable Verdict - where some inconsistencies in evidence given by appellant’s son, who gave the only evidence inculpating the appellant – where witness who ought to have been able to corroborate evidence given by appellant’s son not called – whether it was open to jury to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt – HELD: Appeal against conviction allowed, Verdict of guilty set aside, New trial ordered

Sentence Application – Criminal Law – Appeal and New Trial and Inquiry after Conviction – Appeal and New Trial – Appeal against Sentence – Appeal by Convicted Persons – Applications to Reduce Sentence – When Granted - where the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of one count of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, one count of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methadone and one count of possession of a mobile phone for use in connection with the commission of the crime of supplying a dangerous drug – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 months – where the trial judge ordered that the applicant be released on parole after serving nine months imprisonment – Appeal – General Principles – Right of Appeal – When Appeal Lies – Error of Law – Particular Cases Involving Error of Law – Failure to Give Reasons for Decision - where the applicant’s parole release date was significantly past the halfway point of his head sentence – whether the trial judge erred in not giving reasons explaining the process underlying his decision to set the parole release date significantly past the halfway point – HELD: Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed, Appeal allowed, Sentence is set aside and in lieu thereof order that the applicant be imprisoned for 15 months and fix the parole release date as 29 May 2008

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence – Criminal Law – Appeal and New Trial and Inquiry after Conviction – Appeal and New Trial – Particular Grounds – Unreasonable or Insupportable Verdicts – Where Appeal Dismissed - where the appellant was convicted of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 12 years and four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years – where the appellant was acquitted of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years and two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge of a child under 12 years – where the appellant was the complainant’s stepsisters’ grandfather – where there were material inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence in relation to some counts – where there was a recorded pretext call suggesting the existence of a sexual relationship – whether the differing verdicts of guilty and not guilty were reconcilable based on the evidence – Particular Grounds – Misdirection and Non-Direction – General Matters – Other Matters – where the primary judge gave directions to the jury as to the assessment of credibility in relation to the appellant and the complainant – where the primary judge gave directions as to the separate consideration of evidence in respect of each charge – whether the primary judge’s directions were adequate – whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the absence of a Markuleski direction – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence - where the primary judge found the sexual relationship had been maintained for 14 months – where the evidence showed the sexual relationship had only been maintained for about nine months – where the appellant is in poor health – whether the process of calculating the sentence miscarried – whether the sentencing discretion should be exercised afresh – HELD: Appeal against conviction dismissed, Appeal against sentence allowed, For count 1, the appellant be sentenced to three years imprisonment, For each of counts 4, 5, 6 and 7 the appellant be sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, The terms of imprisonment be served concurrently, The period of 251 days of pre-sentence custody from 18 September 2003 to and including 30 October 2003 and from 8 August 2005 to and including 4 March 2006 to be deemed time served in relation to each of the above sentences.