Cox v Water Resources Commission - [1995] QLC 68

[1995] QLC 68

LAND COURT

BRISBANE
9 August 1995
Re:     Claims for Compensation
  Resumption for Burdekin River Irrigation Project
Acquisition of Land Act 1967
Water Resources Act 1989
  (A91-49, A91-50, A91-51, A91-52, A92-49, A93-43).

Vivian Henry Cox
  v.
  Water Resources Commission
Geoffrey Alexander Cox
  v.
  The Commissioner of Water Resources
  and
  Water Resources Commission

DECISION ON PAYMENT OF INTEREST

The Land Resumed from Claimant Mr Vivian Henry Cox
(A91-50, A91-51, A91-52, A92-49)

Four parcels of the claimant's land with a combined area of 3,705.274 hectares were resumed for purposes of the Burdekin River Irrigation Project. The land was resumed on the following dates:
Lot 46 on Plan GS6, Parish of Jarvisfield, area 1092.854 hectares, resumed 5 May 1990;

Lot 47 on Plan GS36, Parish of Jarvisfield, area 2327.221 hectares, resumed 5 May 1990;

Lot 4 on Plan GL12472, Parish of Northcote, area 78.91 hectares, resumed 22 September 1990;

Lot 87 on Plan GL12483, Parish of Jarvisfield, area 206.289 hectares, resumed 27 April 1991.

Total area 3705.274 hectares.

Despite the different dates of resumption, both parties agreed that for the purpose of calculating any interest that may be ordered to be paid, the period should commence on 5 May 1990, the date that 3,420.075 hectares of the land was resumed.
           Claims for compensation in respect of Lot 46, Lot 47 and Lot 4 were dated 23 October 1991, and in respect of Lot 87 dated 17 November 1992. The combined claim totalled $6,303,950.
           On 29 June 1992, an advance against compensation of $1,305,979 was made by the respondent and on 6 January 1993, a further advance of $107,000 was made.
           On 16 February 1994, during the hearing of the matter, the combined claim was amended to $10,398,000. The amount finally put in evidence by the respondent was $1,908,834, exclusive of the sum of $2,000 agreed for legal fees.
           On 17 July 1995, compensation was determined at $4,960,400.
           Mr Cooke Q.C., Senior Counsel for the respondent, submits that it is well established that unreasonable delay in prosecuting a claim may deprive a claimant of an award of interest for part of the period from resumption to payment. He contends that in determining the period during which interest should be paid, the following matters should be taken into account:
•The long delay between the date of resumption of the major parcels (5 May 1990) and the date of lodgment of the claim (23 October 1991), a period of one year and five months.
•The claim was lodged only after the respondent had referred the matter to the Land Court under the provisions of s.24 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 and the issuing of an order under the provisions of s.25 of that Act.
•The delay of almost three years between the date of lodgment of the claim to the date the matter first came before the Court;
•The adjournments sought and obtained by the claimant because the claimant had not prepared his case.
Mr Needham, Counsel for the claimant, argues that,…

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.

Continue reading Cox v Water Resources Commission

Details

AGLC: Cox v Water Resources Commission [1995] QLC 68
Case: [1995] QLC 68
Decision Date: 9 August 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cox v Water Resources Commission involves claims for compensation by Vivian Henry Cox and Geoffrey Alexander Cox for land and easements resumed for the Burdekin River Irrigation Project under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 and the Water Resources Act 1989. The claimants argue for interest on the compensation awarded from the date of resumption until the date of payment. The Water Resources Commission contends that interest should not be awarded due to delays in lodging the claims and in bringing the matter to court. The court must determine whether the delays were unreasonable and whether the claimants' continued occupation of the land post-resumption affects their right to interest.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the delays in lodging the claims and bringing the matter to court were unreasonable, and whether the claimants' occupation of the land post-resumption affected their right to interest on the compensation. The court considered the established practice of awarding interest from the date of resumption to the date of payment of compensation, with exceptions for unreasonable delay and continued occupation by the dispossessed owner.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the delays, noting that the claims were lodged within a reasonable timeframe considering the complexity of the negotiations and the ongoing discussions with the authorities. The court also found that the claimants' occupation of part of the resumed land was by agreement and did not contribute to the delays. The court concluded that there was no undue delay in lodging the claim or bringing the matter to court, and that the use of part of the land for grazing did not warrant a departure from the usual practice of awarding interest.

The court ruled that interest should be paid on the award of compensation from the date of resumption to the date of payment, making allowance for the advances made. The court ordered specific rates and periods for the payment of interest based on the amounts and dates of the compensation and advances.

Orders