Krajniw v Brisbane City Council [2010] FCA 1366

Krajniw v Brisbane City Council [2010] FCA 1366

The application must be struck out as the applicant has not properly identified protected species or a proper basis for relief against the State of Queensland, and claims are to be confined to conduct alleged to be contrary to the specified sections of the Act against parties for whom relief may properly be sought. The applicant is given leave to file a properly confined amended application and a statement of claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief Under Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act / Interlocutory/leave to Amend Application, Strike Out Application and Orders for Costs
Outcome
Application struck out with leave to refile limited to specific claims under s 475; proceedings against the State of Queensland dismissed; costs awarded to first and second respondents.
Legal Topics
['protected Species' 'standing Under Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (cth)' 'strike Out of Proceedings' 'claims for Relief Under S 475']
['environmental Law'] ['protected Species' 'standing Under Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (cth)' 'strike Out of Proceedings' 'claims for Relief Under S 475']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Relief Under Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act / Interlocutory/leave to Amend Application, Strike Out Application and Orders for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether applicant can maintain claims under s 475 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) against the respondents' 'Whether the correct parties and species are identified for purposes of the relief sought' 'Whether applicant has standing under s 475(6)' 'Whether proceedings are properly brought against the State of Queensland']

Ratio Decidendi

The application must be struck out as the applicant has not properly identified protected species or a proper basis for relief against the State of Queensland, and claims are to be confined to conduct alleged to be contrary to the specified sections of the Act against parties for whom relief may properly be sought. The applicant is given leave to file a properly confined amended application and a statement of claim.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with leave to refile limited to specific claims under s 475; proceedings against the State of Queensland dismissed; costs awarded to first and second respondents.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding against the second, third and fourth Respondents be struck out, their names be removed from the titles to the action and the State of Queensland be joined as second Respondent in their place' 'The application filed on 29 July 2010 be struck out' 'The proceedings against the second respondent (the...