• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

This decision concerns the final calculation and formal perfection of an earlier Court of Appeal order in a rates-recovery case. Brisbane City Council had sued Edward Amos for unpaid rates and charges relating to multiple properties. The primary judge found for the Council on 13 June 2016 ([1]). On 20 February 2018, the Court of Appeal allowed Amos’s appeal and set aside the primary judgment because some claimed amounts were barred by the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The Court ordered that judgment be entered for the Council “in accordance with minutes of judgment produced by the parties to the Registrar” ([2]).

Neither party produced those minutes. The judgment sum therefore remained unperfected ([3]). In late 2023, the Council sent Amos a draft minute calculating the outstanding judgment sum. It included substantial interest, described by the Court as compounding interest calculated under s 65 of the City of Brisbane (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010 (Qld) ([4] and footnote 1). The parties did not agree on the draft.

Amos then applied for an order restraining the Council from taking further steps to perfect or implement the 2018 order, or, alternatively, for a permanent stay. Both forms of relief relied on delay ([5]). The Council also sought to have an assessed costs amount set off against any judgment sum ([6]).

The Council explained the delay in three periods. First, the parties had agreed to defer perfection until 21 days after the High Court dealt with the Council’s special leave appeal, which the Court said explained delay through 13 February 2020 ([8]). Second, the Council pointed to work demands arising from COVID-19 and flood emergencies between early 2020 and 2022 ([9]). Third, it relied on the costs-assessment process commenced in 2022 and completed in 2023 ([10]). Amos accepted that he also had an obligation to take steps, but argued that the Council had the primary responsibility because the calculations were complicated ([11]).

The Court rejected the attempt to place responsibility for the delay on only one party. It found that both had failed to comply with the order and their obligations under r 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) ([12]). It refused to restrain perfection or permanently stay the order, but adjusted the relevant calculation period to address the interest that had accrued during non-compliance ([16]–[23]).

Why the court decided this way

The Court’s reasoning had two connected but distinct parts: whether delay barred the Council from perfecting the order, and whether the delay should affect the amount of interest included in the judgment.

On the first question, the Court treated the obligation to comply as applying to both litigants. Rule 5 was identified as requiring both parties to take steps promptly to produce the calculations required by the order ([12]). The Council’s explanation did not remove its obligation to comply ([13]). Equally, the Court found that nothing in Amos’s material satisfactorily explained why he could not have prepared calculations himself or brought the non-compliance back before the Court ([14]). The Court therefore characterised the failure as one by both parties, and found no injustice in allowing the order to be perfected despite the delay ([15]).

The Court also addressed the reasons advanced for the delay more specifically. It said the parties could not agree to disregard the Court of Appeal order while the Council pursued special leave, because the judgment was not provisional and the obligation to comply remained paramount ([19]). COVID-19 and flood emergencies placed demands on Council resources but did not justify non-compliance ([20]). Nor did the material show good reason for either party’s failure to produce calculations promptly ([21]). These points reinforced the conclusion that responsibility was shared.

The second question was not simply whether the Council could recover interest under the relevant local-government legislation. The Court focused on the consequences of the parties’ failure to implement the order. It observed that if they had complied, the judgment would not have included the “very significant sums by way of compounding interest” that accrued during the delay ([17]). The Court’s answer was to calculate the judgment as if compliance had occurred within a reasonable period.

In the ordinary course, the Court said, compliance ought to have occurred within a week or so of delivery of the reasons. Because the necessary calculations were more involved in this case, it allowed three months ([23]). It then calculated rates and interest under Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld) and the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (Qld) to 20 May 2018 ([24]). The resulting amount for rates and interest was $518,726.58. After setting off $54,322.28 for the appellant’s costs, the perfected judgment was $464,404.28 ([25]–[26]).

The Court dealt separately with interest on that judgment sum. It found that the interests of justice favoured interest from 21 May 2018 to the date of judgment, under s 59 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), because the Council had been deprived of payment and Amos knew of the obligation to pay rates and Council interest ([27]). The ordered interest was $210,711.14 ([29]). The distinction is important: the Court limited the period for calculating the original rates-related interest, but still awarded statutory interest on the resulting judgment sum for the later period.

For costs, the Court set off the assessed amount, but declined to award additional interest on it because it was not the subject of a final certificate ([25]). It made no order as to costs of the original proceeding or either application. Although the Council sought costs of Amos’s application, the Court considered that Amos had achieved some measure of success and declined to make a positive costs order ([28]).

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not set out a broad account of the law before this decision or compare competing lines of authority. Its reasoning is tied to the particular 2018 order, the parties’ failure to produce the required minutes, and the applicable statutory sources. It would therefore be unsafe to describe it as changing a general rule about delay or interest beyond the propositions the Court stated and applied.

Before the present orders, the Court of Appeal’s 20 February 2018 order required judgment for the Council in accordance with minutes produced by the parties, but the amount remained unperfected because neither side supplied the minutes ([2]–[3]). The Court’s current decision resolved that procedural gap and specified the monetary judgment.

The stated procedural basis is r 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), which the Court said imposed obligations on both parties to take steps promptly to produce calculations ([12]). The Court did not reproduce the text of r 5 or analyse its operation in other types of proceedings. Its specific application was that neither litigant could treat the other’s inaction as removing their own responsibility to comply ([12]–[15]).

The decision also gives a case-specific approach to interest where shared non-compliance causes a substantial increase in the amount claimed. Rather than either denying perfection because of delay or including every amount that had accrued by the time the Council prepared its draft, the Court asked what judgment would have been entered had the order been complied with. It allowed three months for the calculations, then applied the rates and interest regime to 20 May 2018 ([22]–[24]). It separately awarded interest under s 59 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) from 21 May 2018 ([27], [29]).

The judgment mentions s 65 of the City of Brisbane (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010 (Qld) as the basis for the compounding interest proposed in the Council’s 2023 draft ([4] and footnote 1). For the calculation ultimately used, however, the Court identified Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld) and the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (Qld) ([24]). It also referred to s 97 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld) in connection with the costs assessment, which was not the subject of a final certificate ([25] and footnote 2). The judgment does not provide the full text or a general interpretation of those provisions.

Accordingly, the “after” position evident from this decision is narrow: the particular order was perfected using a three-month compliance period, the assessed costs were set off without additional interest, and post-20 May 2018 interest was dealt with as statutory interest on the judgment sum. The reasons do not establish how a different court would resolve a different procedural history or statutory scheme.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [12], the Court said both parties’ obligations required them “to promptly produce calculations, in accordance with the minutes of judgment.” In plain English, the Council was not solely responsible for turning the earlier order into a precise sum. Amos also had to take steps to address the calculations.

At [13], the Court said the Council’s explanation did not “absolve” it from its obligation. The practical point is that competing operational pressures may explain delay but, on the Court’s reasoning, did not cancel the duty to comply with the order.

At [14], the Court noted that Amos could have taken steps in the Council’s absence, including bringing the matter back before the Court. This supported the conclusion that the failure was shared, rather than a basis for attributing the entire delay to the Council.

At [15], the Court concluded that “no injustice arises in allowing the Order to be perfected at this time.” That conclusion answered the request to restrain perfection or permanently stay the earlier order. It did not mean the delay was irrelevant to the calculation of interest.

At [19]–[21], the Court explained why the proffered reasons did not justify non-compliance. The parties could not treat the appeal order as provisional while special leave was pursued; COVID-19 and flood emergencies did not justify the Council’s failure; and the evidence did not establish a good reason for either party’s delay. The order remained something the parties were required to implement.

At [22], the Court stated that the judgment should be the judgment that would have been entered had the parties complied. In plain English, the parties’ shared failure should not produce a larger judgment merely because the calculations were left undone for years.

At [23], the Court said that although compliance would normally occur within about a week, three months was reasonable for these calculations. That period supplied the practical basis for fixing the end date for the rates and interest calculation.

At [27], the Court explained why it awarded further interest on the perfected judgment sum: the Council had been deprived of that sum, and Amos knew of his obligation to pay the outstanding rates and Council interest. The resulting order specified interest of $210,711.14 from 21 May 2018 to 14 June 2024 ([29]).

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The reasoning is most directly relevant to a procedural situation with several features present here: a court has already made an order requiring a later calculation or formal perfection; the parties have not carried out the steps required; both parties have some capacity or obligation to progress the matter; and delay has materially affected the sum ultimately sought.

A particularly important feature was the distinction between responsibility for delay and the financial consequences of delay. The Court did not treat the shared failure as a reason to prevent perfection altogether. Instead, it allowed the order to be perfected while adjusting the calculation so that delay did not inflate the original rates-and-interest sum beyond what would have resulted from timely compliance ([15]–[23]).

The decision may be relevant where one party argues that the other’s delay should prevent enforcement or formal completion of an order, but the party making that argument also failed to take steps. The Court’s reasoning indicates that a litigant’s ability to act, or to return the matter to court, may be relevant to assessing whether the failure was shared ([14]–[15]). It also illustrates that an explanation for delay may be considered without being treated as a discharge of the underlying procedural obligation ([13], [19]–[21]).

The interest analysis is fact-dependent. Here, the claimed interest was described as substantial and compounding, and the Court accepted that the judgment would not have included those later amounts had the parties complied ([17], [22]). The Court allowed three months because of the nature of the calculations in this case ([23]). The reasons do not say that three months is a general allowance for other cases.

The decision should not be read, on the material provided, as establishing a general rule that interest stops whenever parties fail to comply with a judgment order. The Court made a particular calculation under the local-government provisions it identified, then awarded interest under s 59 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) on the resulting judgment sum. The statutory regime, terms of the original order, period of delay, parties’ conduct, and evidence about the calculations would all matter in assessing whether the reasoning is applicable elsewhere.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment supplied here contains no discussion of later decisions applying, distinguishing, approving or criticising this decision. It was delivered on 14 June 2024, and the text does not identify any subsequent judicial treatment. No conclusion about its later reception can be drawn from this source alone.

The judgment does identify the related earlier decision, Amos v Brisbane City Council (2017) 230 LGERA 51; [2018] QCA 11. That earlier Court of Appeal decision is described as having allowed Amos’s appeal, set aside the primary judgment and ordered judgment for the Council in accordance with minutes to be produced by the parties ([2]). The present judgment concerns the later failure to produce those minutes and the resulting calculation and perfection of the order. The supplied text does not provide the earlier decision’s full reasoning, so its legal analysis should not be inferred from this judgment’s short procedural account.

Still-open questions

The judgment resolves the applications before it, but several matters are left open by the reasons. It does not explain how the Court would assess a case where only one party had a practical ability to prepare the required calculations, or where one party had actively prevented the other from complying. Here, the Court found that both parties could have taken steps and neither provided a satisfactory reason for failing to do so ([14], [21]).

It also does not specify how the reasonable period for compliance should be calculated in other cases. The Court described a week or so as normal, but allowed three months because of the calculations required in this matter ([23]). The reasons do not set out a general test for determining the appropriate period, beyond tying it to the nature of the task.

The judgment does not give a detailed explanation of the calculation methodology for each property, the rate changes over time, or the operation of the local-government interest provisions. It states the aggregate calculation through 20 May 2018 and gives the final property-by-property amounts in the orders ([24], [29]). A reader cannot derive a broader interpretation of the statutory provisions from the figures alone.

Finally, the judgment does not discuss whether different terms in an original order, different procedural rules, or a different statutory regime would lead to the same treatment of delay-generated interest. Its reasoning is grounded in this order, these parties’ shared non-compliance and the particular calculation period adopted. Any extension beyond those circumstances would require examination of the relevant order, legislation, rules and later authorities.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.