GPT Re Limited v Valuer-General (No 3) - [2019] QLC 8

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General (No 3) [2019] QLC 8

PARTIES:
GPT RE Limited
ACN 107 426 504 as responsible entity under instruments 704481554 and 709013845

(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA106-14

DIVISION: General division

PROCEEDING: Applications for costs

DELIVERED ON: 21 February 2019

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 15 June 2018
Submissions closed 31 July 2018

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: PA Smith

ORDERS:
As regards GPT’s application for costs with respect to the 304 George Street sale issue:

The Valuer-General pay GPT’s costs of and incidental to the issue of the 304 George Street sale, to be assessed on an indemnity basis.1.

2.   The quantum of the costs in Order 1 is to be as agreed between GPT and the Valuer-General or, failing agreement, to be assessed.

As regards GPT’s application for costs with respect to costs arising out of the preliminary point interlocutory proceeding:

GPT’s application for costs is dismissed.3.

Each party pay their own costs of and incidental to the preliminary point interlocutory proceeding.4.

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – COSTS – where the Land Court allowed the appeal – where costs of interlocutory application were reserved – where parties generally bear their own costs – where the Court has discretion to award costs under s 171 Land Valuation Act 2010 – where the Court’s discretion to award costs is unfettered – whether model litigant principles are relevant – whether frivolous or vexatious conduct is a prerequisite to fail to discharge a party’s responsibility in an appeal – whether absence of explanation for breach is taken into account in awarding costs – where a party’s arguments for discharging its responsibilities are insufficient – where the respondent’s conduct directly caused the appellant additional costs

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – COSTS – where appellant seeks costs on an indemnity basis for appeal costs and interlocutory proceedings – where appellant alleges the respondent’s conduct was frivolous or vexatious – where appellant alleges in the alternative the respondent did not properly discharge its responsibilities – where appellant alleges general application costs can be awarded pursuant to s 34 Land Court Act 2000 – where respondent contends Land Court Act cannot apply due to construction of the statute – where Valuer-General has obligations under Public Service Act 2008 – where respondent argues two different methodologies for same sale – where appellant fails to provide detailed costings for costs sought

Land Court Act 2000 s 34
Land Valuation Act 2010 s 155, s 167, s 171

Ashmore v British Coal Corporation [1990] 2 QB 388, cited
Brisbane Square Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 40, applied
Brisbane Square Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 69, considered
Copley v Logan City Council & Anor [2012] QPELR 643; [2012] QPEC 43, considered
Ebis Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2011] QCA 15, considered

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 GPT Re Limited v Valuer-General (No 3) 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 8
Decision Date: 21 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

GPT Re Limited sought to recover costs from the Valuer-General in the context of a dispute concerning the valuation of land in Queensland. The dispute arose from an interlocutory application and a preliminary point proceeding, which were part of a larger appeal against the valuation of 304 George Street. The Land Court allowed the appeal, but the issue of costs remained to be decided. The court was required to determine whether the Valuer-General's conduct warranted an award of costs on an indemnity basis, and if so, the appropriate quantum of those costs.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Valuer-General's conduct was frivolous or vexatious, thereby justifying an award of costs on an indemnity basis, and whether the Valuer-General had properly discharged its responsibilities under the applicable statutes. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the model litigant principles and the absence of explanation for the breach of statutory duties were relevant in determining the costs. The appellant, GPT, argued that the Valuer-General's conduct was frivolous or vexatious and that it did not properly discharge its responsibilities, leading to additional costs for GPT. The Valuer-General contended that the court's discretion to award costs was limited and that there was no requirement for frivolous or vexatious conduct to be established. The Valuer-General also argued that the Land Court Act 2000 could not be applied to the situation due to statutory construction.

The court held that the Valuer-General's conduct directly caused additional costs for GPT, which justified an award of costs on an indemnity basis for the 304 George Street sale issue. The court found that the Valuer-General's conduct in using two different methodologies for the same sale and failing to provide an adequate explanation for its actions was unreasonable. However, the court dismissed GPT's application for costs with respect to the preliminary point interlocutory proceeding, determining that each party should bear its own costs for that part of the proceeding. The court ordered the Valuer-General to pay GPT's costs of and incidental to the 304 George Street sale issue, to be assessed on an indemnity basis, and each party to pay its own costs for the preliminary point interlocutory proceeding. The quantum of the costs for the 304 George Street sale issue was to be as agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

As regards GPT’s application for costs with respect to the 304 George Street sale issue:

The Valuer-General pay GPT’s costs of and incidental to the issue of the 304 George Street sale, to be assessed on an indemnity basis.1.

2. The quantum of the costs in Order 1 is to be as agreed between GPT and the Valuer-General or, failing agreement, to be assessed.

As regards GPT’s application for costs with respect to costs arising out of the preliminary point interlocutory proceeding:

GPT’s application for costs is dismissed.3.

Each party pay their own costs of and incidental to the preliminary point interlocutory proceeding.4.

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:	GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General (No 3) [2019] QLC 8
PARTIES:	GPT RE Limited ACN 107 426 504 as responsible entity under instruments 704481554 and 709013845 (appellant)
v
Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO:	LVA106-14
DIVISION:	General division
PROCEEDING:	Applications for costs
DELIVERED ON:	21 February 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	15 June 2018 Submissions closed 31 July 2018
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	PA Smith
ORDERS:	As regards GPT’s application for costs with respect to the 304 George Street sale issue: The Valuer-General pay GPT’s costs of and incidental to the issue of the 304 George Street sale, to be assessed on an indemnity basis.1. 2. The quantum of the costs in Order 1 is to be as agreed between GPT and the Valuer-General or, failing agreement, to be assessed. As regards GPT’s application for costs with respect to costs arising out of the preliminary point interlocutory proceeding: GPT’s application for costs is dismissed.3. Each party pay their own costs of and incidental to the preliminary point interlocutory proceeding.4.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – COSTS – where the Land Court allowed the appeal – where costs of interlocutory application were reserved – where parties generally bear their own costs – where the Court has discretion to award costs under s 171 Land Valuation Act 2010 – where the Court’s discretion to award costs is unfettered – whether model litigant principles are relevant – whether frivolous or vexatious conduct is a prerequisite to fail to discharge a party’s responsibility in an appeal – whether absence of explanation for breach is taken into account in awarding costs – where a party’s arguments for discharging its responsibilities are insufficient – where the respondent’s conduct directly caused the appellant additional costs REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – COSTS – where appellant seeks costs on an indemnity basis for appeal costs and interlocutory proceedings – where appellant alleges the respondent’s conduct was frivolous or vexatious – where appellant alleges in the alternative the respondent did not properly discharge its responsibilities – where appellant alleges general application costs can be awarded pursuant to s 34 Land Court Act 2000 – where respondent contends Land Court Act cannot apply due to construction of the statute – where Valuer-General has obligations under Public Service Act 2008 – where respondent argues two different methodologies for same sale – where appellant fails to provide detailed costings for costs sought Land Court Act 2000 s 34 Land Valuation Act 2010 s 155, s 167, s 171 Ashmore v British Coal Corporation [1990] 2 QB 388, cited Brisbane Square Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 40, applied Brisbane Square Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 69, considered Copley v Logan City Council & Anor [2012] QPELR 643; [2012] QPEC 43, considered Ebis Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2011] QCA 15, considered