Several of the first-half decisions of 2026 repay attention less for their planning merits than for their treatment of process, from the limits of the minor change power to costs, apprehended bias, owner’s consent and the management of an appeal running alongside a criminal prosecution.
The limits of the minor change power were tested repeatedly. In JLand Australia Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2026] QPEC 20, Kefford DCJ refused a change introducing extensive flood-mitigation works as substantially different development, dismissed a related adjournment, and awarded costs including on the indemnity basis from the point the developer persisted with a hopeless application after warning. In JA & JB Boyle Pty Ltd v Whitsunday Regional Council [2026] QPEC 30, McDonnell DCJ held that a change to a variation request that switched the facilitated use and removed the practical need for a reconfiguration was substantially different and could not proceed as a minor change. By contrast, in Austin BMI Pty Ltd v Ipswich City Council [2026] QPEC 17, Williamson KC DCJ approved a change to the method of managing spontaneous-combustion material beneath the resource-recovery-area pad, holding that a change to the management of a known constraint does not alter the nature, scale or intensity of the use. The recurring principle is that s 46 of the Planning and Environment Court Act is a substantive gate, and that the appeal is a vehicle to refine a proposal, not to redesign it.
On costs, Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Limited v Brisbane City Council (No. 2) [2026] QPEC 8 confirmed that a commercial competitor bringing a submitter appeal is not, for that reason, acting for an improper purpose, and that expert support for an argument will ordinarily defeat any suggestion that a case was frivolous, McDonnell DCJ reaffirming the default position under s 59 that each party bears its own costs. Costs also followed an interlocutory skirmish in BGM Projects Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2026] QPEC 13, where Williamson KC DCJ granted leave to amend an originating application validity challenge but fixed the applicant with the opposing respondents’ costs of the application.
The Court addressed apprehended bias in Parklands Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council (No. 5) [2026] QPEC 23, where Cash DCJ declined to recuse himself, holding that tentative views expressed at a mention are permissible and do not found a reasonable apprehension of prejudgment.
In Aus 8 Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2026] QPEC 19, McDonnell DCJ confirmed that a servient tenement is “excluded premises” where the development is consistent with the terms of the relevant easement, so that owner’s consent under s 51 is not required and no duty of consultation arises.
In Rivermakers Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2026] QPEC 11, Kefford DCJ addressed the interaction between a merits appeal and parallel criminal prosecutions, declining for the moment to adjourn the appeal but signalling that case-management measures might be needed to protect a related party’s privilege against self-incrimination.
In Grunske v Fraser Coast Regional Council [2026] QPEC 7, Cash DCJ declined to determine a technical Tribunal appeal on the papers, holding that contested questions of law of that kind are better suited to oral argument and that the respondent’s statutory right to be heard told against dispensing with a hearing.
The practical thread across these decisions is that the appeal process rewards discipline. A change application must stay within the substantive limits of s 46, the default position on costs is that each party bears its own, and the Court will manage rather than reflexively halt proceedings that intersect with other litigation. For practitioners on both sides, the message is to use the appeal to refine a proposal within the rules rather than to redesign it, and to attend carefully to the procedural framework that governs consent, infrastructure charging appeals and case management.
This publication is general in nature. Its content is current at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and you should always seek legal advice based on your particular circumstances prior to making any decisions relating to matters covered by this publication. Certain details may have been sourced from external references, and we cannot assure the accuracy or timeliness of such information.