JL Holdings Pty Ltd v State of Queensland & Anor [1995] FCA 264

CATCHWORDS PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - discovery - inspection - public interest immunity -whether documents disclose Cabinet deliberations - whether secrecy ought to be maintained Land Act 1962 (Qld) ss 343, 345 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 45D Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co v Veitch [1942] AC 435 Refd The Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1992-3) 176 CLR 604 Cons Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 Cons INP Consortium Limited & Ors v John Fairfax Holdings Limited (unreported 18.7.94 Sheppard J.)Refd J L Holdings Pty Ltd v State of Queensland & Anor No SG 1 of 1994 Kiefel J Brisbane 28 April 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION No. SG 1 of 1994 BETWEEN: J.L. HOLDINGS PTY. LTD. Applicant AND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND First Respondent AND: SOUTHBANK CORPORATION Second Respondent JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Kiefel J. DATE OF ORDER: 28 April 1995 WHERE MADE: Brisbane MINUTES OF ORDERS THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The documents be made available on a limited basis for inspection by the applicant's legal representatives. 2. The applicant prepare Minutes of Order. Note: The Court will hear any application by the first respondent for a stay when the Minutes of Order are settled. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION No. SG 1 of 1994 BETWEEN: J.L. HOLDINGS PTY. LTD. Applicant AND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND First Respondent AND: SOUTHBANK CORPORATION Second Respondent CORAM: Kiefel J. DATE: 28 April 1995 PLACE: Brisbane REASONS FOR JUDGMENT The matter raised by the applicant's motion and for present determination concerns the first respondent's objections to produce for inspection documents listed by it, on the ground that they are of a class which will not, save in exceptional circumstances, be ordered to be produced. A further objection, affecting other documents and based upon legal professional privilege, is to be heard separately. The Applicant's Case The action arises out of dealings with respect to certain land at Kangaroo Point, Brisbane comprising land owned by the Brisbane City Council and twoadjoining parcels which were reserved and set apart for certain purposes under the Land Act 1962 (Qld) and in respect of which the Council was trustee. In 1987 the Council called for tenders with respect to the development of the land owned by it. Whilst intending developers were permitted to incorporate the reserves in a proposal they would need to negotiate with the State government and in particular with the relevant Minister whose approval was necessary under the Land Act if a lease of those lands was to be granted. The applicant outlines the steps taken in ensuing years and which it alleges culminated in the grant of leases both with respect to the Council land and the two adjoining parcels, in the latter case by the Minister for Land Management, Mr Harper, in October 1989. It is alleged however that the Ministerial approval was retracted in October 1991 by the then Minister and following discussions in Cabinet. The discussions over the relevant period, 1987 to October 1991, appear to be extensive as are the documents sought to be withheld from production. In 1988 a committee of the Queensland Cabinet was established to consider a co-ordinated development of the lands, and the applicant's proposals, which had the support of the Council, came to be discussed with and considered by various ministers and public servants throughout 1988. It is alleged that on 16 January 1989 the then Cabinet approved the proposal and after a period when the terms of the agreement for lease were discussed, and on 23 October 1989, the Minister gave the approval required by s.343 Land Act. Steps are then said to have been taken to fulfil other requirements, such as rezoning and obtaining necessary permits. By 26 February 1990, it is alleged that the applicant and the Brisbane City Council had executed the lease for the reserve lands and it was forwarded to the Minister for the endorsement of his approval as required by s.345. By this time however there had been a change of government, although the applicant's statement of claim suggests that continued support for the development was expressed by the new Minister for Land Management and the Deputy Premier and further that statements were made by the Deputy Premier acknowledging that approval had been given to a lease by the former government. By May 1990 an issue relating to the validity of the leases is said to have been raised. On 22 October 1990 the Premier issued a press release stating that the government had decided to approve only a limited development of the area. This was the subject of following discussions between J.L. Holdings, the Deputy Premier and the Lands Administration Commission. On 17 July the Minister for Land Management wrote to J.L. Holdings advising that his "inclination" was to refuse to endorse the approval, but invited it to make submissions. On 4 October 1991 he advised that he had decided not to endorse his approval. At the same time, it is alleged, the Government was looking to support and fund the development of Southbank by the second respondent and which, it is said, contained some similar concepts to those put forward by J.L. Holdings. Discovery has been made by the second respondent.