Misleading Opinion by John Gallagher QC & Mark Johnstone 14 April 2009
Early March 2009 my lawyer Kathleen Dare insisted I seek an opinion on ‘Indefeasible title’ It sort of came out of the blue and she insisted that it had to be penned by a QC, I asked her why she couldnot just tell me what it meant! No, it had to be penned by a QC and then she gave me two options, Either Peter Lyons QC or John Gallagher QC. I knew it would be expensive however a lifetime of experience taught me that if I refused her advice and things went wrong, it would be a matter of ‘I told you so’!
I agreed several days later, but then I was greeted with a sorry ‘Peter Lyons QC’ had become a Supreme Court Justice! well we had no choice but to make an appointment with John Gallagher QC!
Several weeks later an appointment was made. Kathleen Dare and I met at Gallagher’s reception area one of the highest floors at the ‘Inns of Court.’ Kathleen was called in to Gallaghers office and approximately 10 – 15 minutes later I was invited into ‘Gallagher’s Chambers.’ Honestly it was massive,boasting a huge library – bookshelves with volumes of law books spread across an entire wall. Behind a large desk antique flamboyant desk,sat a mature looking balding man and in the room was his assistant Mark Johnston.
We read went through the $30,000 Opinion and the summary of the conversationwas about ‘Hillpalm’ it was a case in NSW that amounted to advice stating, ‘Conditions did not run with the land’ In my case yes there were protections in place under Integrated Planning Act 1997 which applied retrospectively to 13 June 1987. The development application in our instance was submitted into the Brisbane City Council 10 March 1987. I specifically asked ‘Is there any that goes back beyond that’? ‘No’ he answered then talked about the Group Title Act and Land Titles Act and they couldinvestigate the Trade Practices Act.
The appointment lasted for approximately 40 minutes and general advice given was that I could investigate Barbizon etc and challenging Hillpalm might be an option. John Gallagher QC had the same qualifications as any Supreme Court Justice.
In 2015 I discovered the Opinion omitted Section 22 B the transitional section of the 1978 City of Brisbane Town Plan.
22B. Applications and appeals concerning superseded town plans, etc. (l) In this section—
(a) the expression "application to which this section applies"means an application that was duly made and lodged with the Council before the prescribed date for any purpose in connexion with a superseded town plan, which application had not been rejected or approved (either unconditionally or with conditions) by the Council or its delegate before the prescribed date;
(b) the expression "superseded town plan" means—
(i) the town plan that was in force at the time of the making of an application to which this section applies;
(ii) any provision of such town plan affecting such an application that was in force at the time of the making of the application,
but that ceases to have force and effect before the decision on such application by the Council or its delegate because of the coming into force of a new town plan or an amendment of the town plan, as the case may be;
(c) the expression "the prescribed date" means the date when— (i) a new town plan becomes the Plan in place of an existing town plan; or
(ii) an amendment is made to the Plan as prescribed by this Act, whereby a provision of the Plan previously in force affecting an application to which this section applies ceases to have force and effect, as the case may be.
Looking back the document is full of red hearings designed to mislead! It was a con! How can this be an accident? How is it possible that Queens Council and his assistant did not check to see if the legislation in force prior to this statutory law did not contain a ‘transitional section’. The whole episode was rigged.
‘Dirty Rotten Scoundrel’s’