Anson Holdings Pty Ltd v Wallace & Anor

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Anson Holdings Pty Ltd v Wallace & Anor [2010] QLAC 0004

PARTIES:

Anson Holdings Pty Ltd
(appellant)

v.

Ian Earl Wallace
(first respondent)

and

Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Resource Management
(second respondent)

FILE NO:

LAC002-09

DIVISION:

Land Appeal Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Costs of appeal to the Land Appeal Court

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

THE COURT:

Cullinane J
Mrs CAC MacDonald, President of the Land Court
Mr PA Smith, Member of the Land Court

ORDER:

The appellant is to pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

Costs – Appeal – Mining – ss.34 and 82(1) of the Land Court Act 2000 – Judicial discretion not bound by any presumptive rule or principle – rules and principles to be balanced – consideration of the merits of the case – consideration of the conduct of the parties.

APPEARANCES:

Written submissions

SOLICITORS:

Preston Law for the first respondent

1. On 22 March 2010, this Court handed down its decision dismissing an appeal by Anson Holdings Pty Ltd (the appellant) against a decision of the Land Court that the appellant should pay 40% of the first respondent’s costs of proceedings before the Land Court.  Those proceedings concerned an application by the first respondent, Ian Earl Wallace, for a mining lease, an associated standard environmental authority (Mining Lease) and draft environmental authority.[1]   This Court ordered the appellant to pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal unless the appellant contended, within a specified time, that other orders ought to be made. 

   [1]        Wallace v Anson  Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] QLC 0107.

2. The appellant has submitted that there should be no order as to the costs of the appeal because -   

   ·The appeal raised issues of considerable significance to landowners and others affected by or concerned about mining lease applications.  In particular -  

   -the appeal decision clearly established that with the transfer of jurisdiction concerning mining lease applications from the Land and Resources Tribunal to the Land Court in September 2007 the rule that “parties bear their own costs” ended and costs are now in the discretion of the Land Court.  Prior to the decision of the Land Appeal Court there was uncertainty and it was therefore not unreasonable for the appellant to seek clarification by way of the appeal. 

   -the appeal decision confirmed that grounds of objection based on formal defects may be judged as trivial and potentially expose the objector to cost orders unless it is shown they have resulted in prejudice.   

   ·The Land Court and the Land Appeal Court have a longstanding approach recognizing the desirability of maintaining easy access to the Land Court in revenue appeals.  This has been extended to water licences – Dawson v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines[2]  That approach should be extended to mining applications because the grant of a mining lease can be at least as significant…