Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No 2)

Case [2025] QLAC 4

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No 2) [2025] QLAC 4
PARTIES:

Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd
ACN 053 174 271

(appellant)
v

Moreton Bay Regional Council

(respondent)
FILE NOs:

LAC No 001-25

Land Court No AQL037-23
PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON: 16 September 2025
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: Submissions closed 9 September 2025
HEARD AT: On the papers
THE COURT:

Cooper J

PG Stilgoe OAM, President of the Land Court

ND Loos, Member of the Land Court

ORDER:

No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – where appeal to Land Appeal Court was allowed and original decision overturned – where each party enjoyed a measure of success on appeal – whether discretion as to costs ought to be exercised to award costs to the appellant – whether mixed success of each party means no costs order should be made

Land Court Act 2000 (Qld) s 57A

Access Training Group Ltd v Jane [2024] NSWCA 204, cited
Bentleys (Sunshine Coast) Pty Ltd v Thomson [2019] QCA 104, cited
Brisbane City Child Care Pty Ltd v Dalton [2017] QSC 187, cited
Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru [No 2] (2015) 90 ALJR 270, cited
Ipswich City Council v BWP Management Limited& Anor (No 2) (2019) 40 QLCR 214, followed
Toowoomba Regional Council v Wagner Investments Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QCA 225, cited
Villan v The Body Corporate for the Winston (Cairns) Community Titles Scheme 37263 [No 2] [2024] QCA 54, cited
APPEARANCES:

RJ Anderson KC with WDJ Macintosh (instructed by HWL Ebsworth) for the appellant

DR Gore KC with DA Quayle (instructed by Moreton Bay Regional Council) for the respondent

THE COURT:

  1. On 19 August, this Court allowed an appeal on a preliminary question posed by Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd about its entitlements under discontinued notices to resume.[1]

  2. In the appeal, Genamson submitted that s 16(1A) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld) entitled it to claim disturbance costs similar to that available under s 20(5). The Council submitted that Genamson’s entitlements were limited to legal costs and expenses.

  3. This Court held that Genamson was not entitled to disturbance costs but might be entitled to something more than legal costs and expenses. The appeal was allowed.

  4. Genamson now seeks its costs of that appeal and also the hearing below.  

  5. Pursuant to s 57A of the Land Court Act 2000 (Qld) this Court has an unfettered discretion to award costs.[2] The rule that costs follow the event may inform the exercise of the discretion.[3]

    [2]Section 57A Land Court Act 2000 (Qld).

    [3]Ipswich City Council v BWP Management Limited& Anor (No 2) (2019) 40 QLCR 214 at [6].

  6. Genamson submits that the application of this principle, alone, justifies an order for costs in its favour.

  7. The Council submits that the Court should have regard not only to the appeal being allowed, but also the reasons for judgment and the terms on which the case has been remitted to the Land Court for further determination. By examining the decision in this way, the Council submits that its success was greater than that enjoyed by Genamson.

  8. The Council further submits that analysis does not offend the principle that a Court should be cautious about undertaking an issue by issue analysis of a case unless there is a particular issue or group of issues that is clearly dominant or separable from the others.[4]

  9. Although Genamson was technically successful on appeal in that the original decision was overturned, each party enjoyed a measure of success. The outcome could be characterised as having been contestable.[5] 

  10. The mixed success of each party is a compelling reason for concluding that the discretion as to costs ought to be exercised on the basis that neither party be ordered to pay the costs of the other.

Order:

  1. No order as to costs.


Details
AGLC
Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No 2) [2025] QLAC 4
Case
[2025] QLAC 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council, the appellant sought to challenge a decision made by the first respondent, Moreton Bay Regional Council, regarding the development of property. The case was initially heard in the Queensland Land Court, and subsequently appealed to the Queensland Land Appeal Court. The central issue before the Land Appeal Court was the allocation of costs between the parties in light of the mixed outcomes of the appeal. The appellant was partially successful in its appeal, while the respondent was also partially successful. The court was required to determine whether the discretion as to costs should be exercised in favour of the appellant, or whether the mixed success of each party meant that no costs order should be made.

The court considered the general principle that costs follow the event, which means that the unsuccessful party generally bears the costs of the successful party. However, the court also recognised that this principle is not absolute, and that the court may exercise its discretion to order costs in a different manner if the circumstances warrant it. The court noted that the parties had each enjoyed a measure of success on appeal, and that the appellant had not succeeded on all of the grounds of appeal. The court held that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to exercise its discretion and make no order as to costs. The court noted that the parties had incurred significant costs in pursuing the appeal, and that it was not appropriate to burden either party with the costs of the other.

The court's decision reflects the principle that the allocation of costs is a matter of discretion, and that the court may take into account a range of factors when exercising that discretion. In this case, the court considered the mixed success of the parties, the significant costs incurred by both parties, and the fact that neither party had been entirely successful on appeal. The court held that, in light of these factors, it was appropriate to make no order as to costs. This decision provides guidance to parties in similar circumstances, and highlights the importance of considering the broader context when allocating costs in appeals.

Orders

Orders of the court

No order as to costs.

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.