Chris Gasteen

Special Counsel

Chris is an experienced government lawyer with an extensive background across a range of areas including litigation and dispute resolution, insurance law, administrative law and commercial law. He has brought this broad experience to his recent handling of significant and high-profile planning and environment litigation matters on behalf of the State. Chris also offers expertise in legal practice management having held various high-level legal managerial positions in private practice.
  • Rodriguez & Sons P/L v Seqwater, SunWater and the State of Queensland
    Acting for the State in class action proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales arising out of the 2010 – 2011 flood events in South-East Queensland. The proceedings seek damages for property and other losses and are said to be commenced on behalf of 4500 claimants. 
  • Rainbow Shores P/L v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Resource Management and others
    Defending the State In the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland with regard to a decision to refuse an application by Rainbow Shores Pty Ltd for approval of a 200 hectare development on Inskip Peninsula, north of Rainbow Beach. 
  • Falzon & Ors v Coordinator General for the State of Queensland & Gladstone Ports Corporation
    Defending the State in the Planning and Environment Court in this matter where Mr Falzon, on behalf of 60 local fisherman and business owners, objected to dredging permits being issues by the Coordinator General of the Gladstone Ports Corporation.
  • Nona & Ors v the Honourable Andrew Powell MP & Silverback Properties Pty Ltd
    Defending the State in the Planning and Environment Court in this matter where a group of local residents challenged the validity of the declaration of the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve Nature Refuge. The applicants asserted that they were traditional owners of the land and alleged that the proposed management intent was insufficiently described in the declaration. The Court found that the applicants could demonstrate no tangible prejudice to their interests and that there was nothing in the wording of the relevant legislation which warranted a declaration of invalidity.