Aurizon Property Pty Ltd v The Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads (No2)

Case [2024] QLAC 1

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Aurizon Property Pty Ltd v The Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads (No2) [2024] QLAC 1

PARTIES:

Aurizon Property Pty Ltd

ACN 145 991 724
(appellant)

v

The Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads

(respondent)

FILE NOs:

LAC001-23

Land Court No AQL054-20

DIVISION:

Land Appeal Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

19 February 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

THE COURT:

North J

Coker DCJ, Acting Member of the Land Court

WA Isdale, Member of the Land Court

HEARD ON:

On the papers

ORDERS:

1.   The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

2.   Each parties’ costs of and incidental to the hearing below be that parties’ costs in the cause.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL – COSTS OF APPEAL PROCEEDING REMITTED FOR REHEARING COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT

Land Court Act 2000 (Qld) s 57A(1)

Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru (No2) (2015) 90 ALJR 270

John Urquhart t/as Hart Renovations v Partington & Anor [2016] QCA 199

THE COURT:

  1. Both parties filed and served submissions concerning costs in compliance with the Order made on 13 December 2023.

  2. The appellant contended that the costs should follow the event and that in the circumstances of its success the respondent should pay its costs of and incidental to the appeal.[1] The respondent contended that there be no order as to costs. In support of that submission the respondent pointed to the circumstance that the order at first instance was suspended but not set aside and in so doing contended that the result of first instance may be that the order remains undisturbed.

    [1]Refer Appellant’s Outline filed 30 January 2024.

  3. The appellant has enjoyed a substantial measure of success. Contentions made at the trial were not addressed by the Member below resulting in the findings in orders made in this Court. The respondent chose to oppose the arguments raised by the appellant who has been vindicated. The respondent could have conceded the grounds upon which the appellant has succeeded.

  4. This Court has a broad discretion concerning costs.[2] The circumstances here, reflecting the success enjoyed by the appellant, warrant an order for costs following the event.[3]

  5. There should be an order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the Appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

  6. There remains the issue of costs of the trial below. The hearing under the order for remittal may proceed upon substantially the same or similar evidence to that considered by the Member. But that is not the inevitable outcome. The evidence tendered at the rehearing may be substantially different. It is appropriate in these circumstances for the costs of the hearing below be the parties’ costs in the cause.

  7. The orders will be:

    1.   The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

    2.   Each parties’ costs of and incidental to the hearing below be that parties’ costs in the cause.


Details
AGLC
Aurizon Property Pty Ltd v The Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads (No2) [2024] QLAC 1
Case
[2024] QLAC 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aurizon Property Pty Ltd sought an appeal against the Chief Executive of the Department of Transport and Main Roads regarding the assessment of costs related to an earlier proceeding. The initial case revolved around the interpretation and application of certain provisions within the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether the primary judge's determination on the costs of the appeal was appropriate.

The court had to determine if the lower court's decision on the costs of the appeal was correct and if the lower court had exercised its discretion correctly in deciding the costs of the hearing below. This involved examining whether the primary judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and statutory provisions in assessing the costs of the appeal and whether there was any error in the exercise of discretion.

The court held that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the costs of the appeal. It was determined that the appeal costs should follow the event, meaning the appellant, Aurizon Property Pty Ltd, was entitled to its costs of the appeal. The court found that the lower court's approach in determining the costs of the hearing below was also flawed. Consequently, the court remitted the matter for a rehearing of the costs of the appeal, while affirming that each party bear their own costs of the hearing below.

The court's final orders were that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis, and that each party bear their own costs of and incidental to the hearing below.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

2. Each parties’ costs of and incidental to the hearing below be that parties’ costs in the cause.

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.