BHP Coal Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (No 2)

Case •

[2024] QLC 13

•

12 July 2024

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (No 2) [2024] QLC 13

PARTIES:

BHP Coal Pty Ltd; QCT Mining Pty Ltd; Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd; QCT Resources Pty Ltd; QCT Investment Pty Ltd; Umal Consolidated Pty Ltd & BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd

(appellants)

v

Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (formerly Department of Environment and Science)

(respondent)

FILENO:

EPA503-23

DIVISION:

General

PROCEEDING:

Application for costs

DELIVEREDON:

12 July 2024

DELIVEREDAT:

Brisbane

HEARDON:

Written submissions

HEARDAT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

WA Isdale

ORDER:

1. The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding as agreed or as assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – where costs were not disputed – where costs ought to follow the event

APPEARANCES:

S Holt KC and J Underwood of Counsel (instructed by Allens) for the appellants.

J Horton KC and A Hellewell of Counsel (instructed by In- house Legal) for the respondent.

Background

  1. On 13 May, 2024 this Court delivered its decision in BHP Coal Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation.1

  2. The appeal was allowed and orders consequent to that were made.

The present application

  1. The appellants have sought an order that the respondent pay their costs of and incidental to the proceeding as agreed or as assessed on the standard basis.

  2. The appellants pointed to s 27A of the Land Court Act 2000 as the basis for such an order. That section provides that the Court may order costs as it considers appropriate.

  3. The appellants referred to the decision of the Land Appeal Court in Mentech Resources Pty Ltd v MCG Resources Pty Ltd (In liquidation)(no 2).2 There the Land Appeal Court noted that the discretion is unfettered, however the rule that costs follow the event, referring there to r 689 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, informs the exercise of the discretion.

  4. The appellants submit that costs should follow the event in the usual way.

  1. The respondent submits that there is no reason why the usual rule should not apply, that costs should follow the event. It does not resist the orders sought by the appellants.

  2. The Court must exercise its own discretion, informed by the respondent’s position. The discretion must be exercised judicially, for reasons.

Decision

  1. Both parties conducted the proceeding in a professional manner, efficiently using Court time. The appellants were wholly successful. The appellants ought to have their costs property incurred in the proceeding which was made necessary by the respondent.

Order

1.The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding as agreed or as assessed on the standard basis.


  1. [2024] QLC 9.

  2. [2012] 33 QLRC 43 [4].

    2

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0