Westfield Management Ltd v Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd [2003] FCA 839

Westfield Management Ltd v Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd [2003] FCA 839

The proposed separate questions should not be determined because questions concerning s 32 and s 89 of the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) lacked a sufficient agreed factual substratum, several questions were hypothetical, and the only question capable of separate determination did not have sufficient utility to outweigh the risk of delay and increased costs in resolving the proceeding as a whole.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application for Separate Hearing of Issues Under O 29 R 2 of the Federal Court Rules / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; application for determination of separate questions refused.
Legal Topics
['separate Hearing of Issues' 'airport Master Plan' 'major Airport Development' 'statutory Construction' 'airports Act 1996 (cth)']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'planning and Development' 'aviation Law'] ['separate Hearing of Issues' 'airport Master Plan' 'major Airport Development' 'statutory Construction' 'airports Act 1996 (cth)']

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

Practice and Procedure Application for Separate Hearing of Issues Under O 29 R 2 of the Federal Court Rules / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proposed questions concerning s 32 of the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) should be determined separately in advance of trial.' 'Whether proposed questions concerning the meaning of cost of construction and major airport development under s 89 of the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) should be determined separately.' 'Whether proposed questions were hypothetical or lacked a sufficient agreed factual substratum.' 'Whether a question concerning construction of the Master Plan had sufficient utility to justify separate determination.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed separate questions should not be determined because questions concerning s 32 and s 89 of the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) lacked a sufficient agreed factual substratum, several questions were hypothetical, and the only question capable of separate determination did not have sufficient utility to outweigh the risk of delay and increased costs in resolving the proceeding as a whole.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; application for determination of separate questions refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "Costs of the application and of the directions will be each party's costs in the proceedings."]