2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd v Skilton - [2020] QLAC 5

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
PARTIES:

2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd v Skilton [2020] QLAC 5

2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd
(applicant)

v

Gerald Skilton
(respondent)

FILE NOs:
LAC001-20
Land Court No MRA201-19

DIVISION:
Land Appeal Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:
Application for leave to appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:
9 September 2020

DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane

HEARD ON:
HEARD AT:

Not applicable

Not applicable

THE COURT:
Crow J
FY Kingham, President of the Land Court
WA Isdale, Member of the Land Court

ORDER:
Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – whether the applicant can reasonably explain delay – where the delay is one (1) business day – where the applicant held genuine belief appeal could be lodged electronically – where the applicant did not provide reasonable explanation for the delay.

APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – Whether the respondent could reasonably consider an appeal unlikely after appeal period finished – whether the respondent suffered prejudice as a result of the delay – where the Court has power to extend the time to bring an appeal.

APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – whether the application has any prospects of success on appeal – whether the submissions on the prospects of success were competently made – where the applicant did not demonstrate a prospect of success if leave granted – where the respondent’s submissions did not address the prospect of success – where the Court found no indication of a prospect of success if leave granted.

APPEARANCES: Not applicable

CROW J: I agree with the reasons and order proposed by Member Isdale.
KINGHAM P: I agree with the reasons and order proposed by Member Isdale.
MEMBER ISDALE: Mr Gerald David George Skilton has a 15-year mining lease on “Rolfe Creek,” a rural property located to the west of Clermont. It is an aggregation of two lots, one owned by 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd and the other by Patrick and Prue Lonergan, the directors of that company. The miner and the owners were unable to agree on the compensation payable to the owners, so the matter was decided by the Land Court pursuant to s 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld).[1]
[1]Skilton v 2PL Superannuation (No 2) [2020] QLC 8 [2].
The Land Court heard the matter on the papers and delivered its decision on 14 February 2020.[2]
[2]Skilton v 2PL Superannuation (No 2) [2020] QLC 8.
The Land Court determined what compensation should be paid to the company.[3] Orders were made in favour of the company only. No issue has been raised in relation to this.
[3]Above n 1.
An appeal from the decision of the Land Court may be brought as provided by s 282 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld). The materially relevant parts of that section are in the following terms:

“282 Appeal against Land Court’s determination upon compensation

1. A party aggrieved by a determination of the Land Court made under…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd v Skilton and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] QLAC 5
Decision Date: 9 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd v Skilton involves an application for leave to appeal lodged by 2PL Superannuation against a decision made by Skilton. The primary issue at hand is whether the applicant can provide a reasonable explanation for the one-day delay in lodging the appeal, given that the applicant believed it could be submitted electronically. The court also considers whether the respondent could reasonably consider the appeal unlikely after the appeal period had ended, and whether the respondent suffered any prejudice due to the delay. Moreover, the court evaluates whether the application has any prospects of success on appeal and whether the submissions regarding these prospects were competently made.

The legal issues before the court involved the applicant's ability to reasonably explain the one-day delay in lodging the appeal, the respondent's perception of the appeal's likelihood of success post-appeal period, and the overall prospects of success of the appeal. The applicant contended that it had a genuine belief it could lodge the appeal electronically, which accounted for the delay. However, the court found that this did not constitute a reasonable explanation for the delay. The respondent argued that the delay caused prejudice, though the court did not find this to be a determining factor. Additionally, the court found that neither party had adequately demonstrated a prospect of success on appeal, leading to the conclusion that the application lacked any meaningful chance of success.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised that while the delay was minimal, it was still insufficiently explained. The court held that the applicant's belief about electronic lodgement did not justify the delay. Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent's submissions did not adequately address the prospect of success, and the court itself found no indication of a prospect of success if leave were granted. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was refused. The court determined that the applicant's delay was not reasonably explained, and there were no prospects of success on appeal. Therefore, the application did not meet the criteria necessary for leave to appeal to be granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION: PARTIES:	2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd v Skilton [2020] QLAC 5 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd (applicant)
v Gerald Skilton (respondent)
FILE NOs:	LAC001-20 Land Court No MRA201-19
DIVISION:	Land Appeal Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave to appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Land Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	9 September 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON: HEARD AT:	Not applicable Not applicable
THE COURT:	Crow J FY Kingham, President of the Land Court WA Isdale, Member of the Land Court
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – whether the applicant can reasonably explain delay – where the delay is one (1) business day – where the applicant held genuine belief appeal could be lodged electronically – where the applicant did not provide reasonable explanation for the delay. APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – Whether the respondent could reasonably consider an appeal unlikely after appeal period finished – whether the respondent suffered prejudice as a result of the delay – where the Court has power to extend the time to bring an appeal. APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – whether the application has any prospects of success on appeal – whether the submissions on the prospects of success were competently made – where the applicant did not demonstrate a prospect of success if leave granted – where the respondent’s submissions did not address the prospect of success – where the Court found no indication of a prospect of success if leave granted.
APPEARANCES:	Not applicable