NewsBite

Court costs denied over controversial Gympie land dispute

"It is not appropriate that I exercise my discretion to award costs”

Lee and Colleen Wason, standing on the road which cuts through their property and was a key part of a court case with the council. Picture: Scott Kovacevic
Lee and Colleen Wason, standing on the road which cuts through their property and was a key part of a court case with the council. Picture: Scott Kovacevic

MOTHAR Mt couple Lee and Colleen Wason may have been successful in their appeal against a decision by the Gympie Regional Council over the reconfiguration of their property, but a District Court Judge has dismissed their claim to recoup court costs.

After submitting an application to council in July 2016, to split their 48ha property into north and south blocks was rejected, the Wason's successfully appealed to the Planning and Environment Court, albeit to a $50,000 financial deficit.

The Wason's land was already fragmented by Cullinane Rd which formed part of DCJ Everson's findings in favour of the Gympie couple in the original case.

While the road was the Wason's reason for applying for the split, it was also the reason why council denied the application in order to prevent the fragmentation of the property.

After being left with a significant legal bill, Mr Wason has been unsuccessful in his bid to recover court costs with Judge Everson saying he was satisfied the council's concerns about the fragmentation of Good Quality Agricultural Land (GQAL) were genuine and its "focus on maintaining rural land in productive units was reflective of a policy underlying its planning scheme”.

According to court documents, Mr Wason's claim was based on his "completely” successful appeal against council's original decision and that council acted "unreasonably” in their approach to his appeal.

But Judge Everson said "this assertion is not correct,” and found council "did not act unreasonably.”

"The respondent (Gympie Regional Council), was unsuccessful in the appeal, however, in circumstances where it held genuine concerns about the proposed development and successfully demonstrated that the land was, in fact, GQAL, it is not appropriate that I exercise my discretion to award costs.

"I dismiss the application,” he said.

Original URL: https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/gympie/court-costs-denied-over-controversial-gympie-land-dispute/news-story/58fa9acb5502583057a77a186645fe13