//
[2012] QLAC 2
General information, not legal advice.
Land Appeal Court of Queensland
2012-03-06
McMeekin J
Original judgment source is linked above.
[1] The Court: Judgment in this matter was handed down on 10 February 2012. The appeal was dismissed. The parties were directed to make such submissions as to costs as they were advised. They have done so. The first respondent seeks costs to be paid by the appellant, the first respondent having been successful on the appeal. Neither the appellant nor the second respondents have made submissions.
[2] Section 34 of the Land Court Act 2000 (Qld) ("the Act") provides:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this or another Act to the contrary, the Land Court may order costs for a proceeding in the court as it considers appropriate.
(2) If the court does not make an order under subsection (1), each party to the proceeding must bear the party's own costs for the proceeding.
(3) An order made under subsection (1) may be made an order of the Supreme Court and enforced in the Supreme Court.
(4) For subsection (3), it is enough to file the order in the Supreme Court.
(5) The court may, if it considers it appropriate, order the costs to be decided by the appropriate assessing officer of the Supreme Court.
(6) If the court makes an order under subsection (5), the assessing officer may decide the appropriate scale to be used in assessing the costs."
[3] Section 72(1) of the Act provides that s34, amongst other provisions, applies "with necessary changes" to the Land Appeal Court and a "reference in the applied sections to the Land Court is taken to be a reference to the Land Appeal Court".
[4] Hence the Land Appeal Court may order costs "as it considers appropriate". The discretion to award costs is unfettered. However the rule often followed, and the rule incorporated in r 689 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, is that costs follow the event.[1] That rule, while it does not govern the exercise of the discretion here, nonetheless informs it, as there is justice in that approach. It protects those put to unnecessary and substantial expense at the behest of others.[2] There is no reason here why costs should not follow the event in the usual way.
[5] The first respondent seeks that the order be made an order of the Supreme Court pursuant to s 34(3) of the Land Court Act. Presumably that will facilitate enforcement of the order made here. That is appropriate.
1. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal including any reserved costs on the standard basis, such costs to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed by a cost assessor of the Supreme Court.
2. Pursuant to s34(3) of the Land Court Act 2000 this order may be made an order of the Supreme Court and enforced in the Supreme Court.
[1] Barns v Director General, Department of Transport (1997) 18 QLCR 133 at 135.
[2] PT Limited v Department of Natural Resources & Mines (2007) 28 QLCR 295 at [25].
Mentech Resources Pty Ltd
MCG Resources Pty Ltd & Ors