GPT Re Limited v Valuer-General (No 3)

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.