Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council (No 2) - [2019] QLC 17

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council (No 2) [2019] QLC 17*

PARTIES: Roger John Geldard
(appellant)

v

Western Downs Regional Council
(respondent)

FILE NO: LGR077-18

DIVISION: General division

PROCEEDING: Appeal against categorisation decision

DELIVERED ON: 20 March 2019

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 9 October 2018

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: WL Cochrane

ORDERS:
The appeal is allowed.1.

The appropriate rating category for the land described as Lot 3 on Crown Plan BWR1 located at Fairymeadow Road, Miles in the State of Queensland is Rural (category 3/16). 2.

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – RATES AND CHARGES – RATING OF LAND – CATEGORIES OF LAND – where local government has implemented differential general rates – where land owner appeals against decision of local authority on the land owners objection to a rating category for the land – where statutory provisions contemplate categories may be changed from time to time – where respondent uses its own policy to categorise land – where the subject land is used for grazing purposes and burdened by petroleum leases

Local Government Regulation 2012, s 92
APTPetroleumPipelinesPtyLimited v Western Downs Regional Council (2014) 35 QLCR 206; [2014] QLC 18, applied
Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364, cited
BWP Management Ltd v Ipswich City Council; W & V Nominees Pty Ltd as Tte for the Elton Family Trust No.3 v Ipswich City Council [2018] QLC 14, applied
Chamwell Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2007] NSWLEC 114, cited
Conyngham & Ors v Minister for Immigration and EthnicAffairs (1986) 68 ALR 423, applied
Independent Commission against Corruption v Cunneen (2015) 256 CLR 1, cited
Marchesi v Noosa Council [2017] QLC 19, cited
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Conyngham & Ors (1986) 11 FCR 258; 68 ALR 441, cited
Plaintiff 50/2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 253 CLR 219, cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, cited
RoyalAgriculturalSocietyofNewSouthWales v Sydney City Council (1987) 61 LGRA 305, cited
Smith v Wyong Shire Council (No 2) (1980) 41 LGRA 202, applied
South Australian National Football LeagueInc v City of Charles Sturt (1998) 97 LGERA 293, cited
White & Anor v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QLC 51, cited

APPEARANCES: RJ Douglas QC (instructed by Thynne + Macartney) for the appellant
DP O’Brien QC, with JP Hastie (instructed by King & Co.) for the respondent

The appellant, Roger John Geldard, purchased a property called “Lower Heatherley” in the Western Downs Regional Council area on 10 July 2017. It has an area of 839.065 hectares.

Prior to his purchase of that property it had been owned by Australian Pacific LNG Pty Ltd (APLNG), which company was involved in the production of coal seam gas. The result of the transaction was that there remains, on the property, eight operational gas wells together…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] QLC 17
Decision Date: 20 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council (No 2) involved a dispute between the appellant, Mr. Geldard, and the respondent, Western Downs Regional Council, regarding the classification and rating of certain land owned by the appellant. The land in question, situated in Miles, Queensland, is primarily used for grazing purposes and is subject to petroleum leases. Mr. Geldard contested the respondent council's decision to classify and rate his property under a particular category, leading to an appeal. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate rating category for the land, considering the statutory provisions that allow for changes in land categories and the respondent's internal policy for categorising land.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the correct rating category for the land under dispute, given its dual use for grazing and the presence of petroleum leases. The court had to assess the respondent's authority to classify and rate the land, as well as whether the classification and rating were consistent with the relevant statutory provisions and policies. The court needed to decide if the respondent's classification of the land as non-rural was legally sound, or if the land should be categorised as rural given its primary use for grazing.

In resolving the matter, the court meticulously reviewed the statutory framework governing land classification and rating. It found that the respondent's decision to classify the land as non-rural was not in accordance with the statutory provisions and internal policy. The court determined that the land's primary use for grazing warranted a rural classification. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the court ruled that the appropriate rating category for the land was rural (category 3/16). This decision was based on the statutory authority allowing for changes in land categories and the respondent's internal policy that should have been applied correctly.

The final orders of the court mandated that the rating category for the land described as Lot 3 on Crown Plan BWR1, located at Fairymeadow Road, Miles, be changed to rural (category 3/16). This ruling effectively overturned the respondent council's classification and rating of the land, aligning it with the court's determination that the land's primary use for grazing justified a rural classification.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is allowed.1.

The appropriate rating category for the land described as Lot 3 on Crown Plan BWR1 located at Fairymeadow Road, Miles in the State of Queensland is Rural (category 3/16). 2.

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.

CITATION:	Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council (No 2) [2019] QLC 17*
PARTIES:	Roger John Geldard (appellant)
v
Western Downs Regional Council (respondent)
FILE NO:	LGR077-18
DIVISION:	General division
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against categorisation decision
DELIVERED ON:	20 March 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	9 October 2018
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	WL Cochrane
ORDERS:	The appeal is allowed.1. The appropriate rating category for the land described as Lot 3 on Crown Plan BWR1 located at Fairymeadow Road, Miles in the State of Queensland is Rural (category 3/16). 2.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – RATES AND CHARGES – RATING OF LAND – CATEGORIES OF LAND – where local government has implemented differential general rates – where land owner appeals against decision of local authority on the land owners objection to a rating category for the land – where statutory provisions contemplate categories may be changed from time to time – where respondent uses its own policy to categorise land – where the subject land is used for grazing purposes and burdened by petroleum leases Local Government Regulation 2012, s 92 APTPetroleumPipelinesPtyLimited v Western Downs Regional Council (2014) 35 QLCR 206; [2014] QLC 18, applied Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364, cited BWP Management Ltd v Ipswich City Council; W & V Nominees Pty Ltd as Tte for the Elton Family Trust No.3 v Ipswich City Council [2018] QLC 14, applied Chamwell Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2007] NSWLEC 114, cited Conyngham & Ors v Minister for Immigration and EthnicAffairs (1986) 68 ALR 423, applied Independent Commission against Corruption v Cunneen (2015) 256 CLR 1, cited Marchesi v Noosa Council [2017] QLC 19, cited Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Conyngham & Ors (1986) 11 FCR 258; 68 ALR 441, cited Plaintiff 50/2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 253 CLR 219, cited Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, cited RoyalAgriculturalSocietyofNewSouthWales v Sydney City Council (1987) 61 LGRA 305, cited Smith v Wyong Shire Council (No 2) (1980) 41 LGRA 202, applied South Australian National Football LeagueInc v City of Charles Sturt (1998) 97 LGERA 293, cited White & Anor v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QLC 51, cited
APPEARANCES:	RJ Douglas QC (instructed by Thynne + Macartney) for the appellant DP O’Brien QC, with JP Hastie (instructed by King & Co.) for the respondent