Doolan Properties Pty Ltd v Council of the Shire of Pine Rivers
[1998] QLC 80
•22 July 1998
|
BRISBANE
22 July 1998
Re: Claim for compensation - Acquisition of Land Act 1967
Council of the Shire of Pine Rivers
(A96-07)
Doolan Properties Pty Ltd
v.
Council of the Shire of Pine Rivers
FURTHER DECISION ON DISTURBANCE COSTS
In a decision dated 6 July 1998 I ordered the respondent Council to pay the claimant the sum of $38,327.50 for disturbance costs and to pay interest at specified rates for specified periods on some of the amounts comprising that total.
There remained for decision the amount to be paid for solicitors’ costs incurred in the preparation of the claim for compensation. The claimant sought an award of $43,185.17. For reasons given on 6 July 1998, I was unable to determine on the evidence then before the Court (Exhibits 10, 21) what amount should be paid. The parties were invited to consider which course of action they would take to assist the Court in resolving the outstanding issue.
The parties subsequently reached agreement that the sum of $15,000.00 be paid.
In a letter dated 21 July 1998, the Council’s solicitor informed the claimant’s solicitors as follows:“The Council considered the matter of payment of your client’s solicitors costs for the preparation of the compensation claim at its General Meeting last night (20.7.98).
Council resolved to pay your client the sum of $15,000.00 in addition to the compensation and disturbance items sums ordered by the Court on 24 December 1997 and 6 July 1998 respectively.”
By letter dated 21 July 1998, the claimant’s solicitors advised the Court that agreement had been reached by the parties for the Council to pay the sum of $15,000.00 “in respect of the claimant’s costs of obtaining legal advice in relation to the lodgment of the claim for compensation”.
It is often the case that the Land Court accepts an agreed sum as the amount of disturbance costs. In some instances, particularly where the amount sought is larger than usual, the Court requires evidence to support that amount. In this case, there was some evidence of how the solicitors had arrived at the amount sought. The limited usefulness of that evidence was discussed in the reasons for decision on 6 July and need not be repeated here. In light of that evidence and the agreement reached between the parties on this item of disturbance costs, however, I do not require any further evidence to be given.
The Order 2 made on 6 July 1998 will be varied by adding the sum of $15,000.00, so that the total amount payable for disturbance costs is $53,327.50. As payment of the solicitors’ account was deferred pending the outcome of the proceedings, no interest is payable on that amount.
Order
The Orders made by the Land Court on 6 July 1998 are varied by replacing Order 2 with the following Order:
The respondent Council shall pay the claimant the sum of fifty three thousand, three hundred and twenty seven dollars and fifty cents ($53,327.50) for disturbance costs comprising:
Victor Feros $ 3,167.50
ETS Group $ 6,700.00
Andy Steele & Associates $ 7,140.00
Taylor Byrne $ 4,000.00
Cushway Blackford & Associates $ 3,000.00
Ove Arup & Partners $11,520.00
Tim Trotter $ 2,800.00
Clarke and Kann $15,000.00.
GJ NEATE
MEMBER
0
0
0