Inglis v State of Queensland

[2014] QLAC 4

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Inglis & Ors v State of Queensland [2014] QLAC 4
PARTIES:	Robert Mallalieu Inglis, Marion Ann Inglis and Paul Mallalieu Inglis (appellants)
v
State of Queensland (respondent)
FILE NO:	LAC001-14
DIVISION:	Land Appeal Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Application for a stay
ORIGINATING COURT:	Land Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	14 April 2014 [Ex tempore]
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	14 April 2014
THE COURT	Peter Lyons J CAC MacDonald, President of the Land Court PA Smith, Member of the Land Court
ORDER:	The application for a stay is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for a stay – No suggestion that appellants if successful on appeal may be deprived of the fruits of that success – not relevant that application is with the consent of the other party
COUNSEL:	MP Van der Walt, for the appellants GP Sammon, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Andersons Lawyers, for the appellants Crown Solicitor for the State of Queensland, for the respondent

PETER LYONS J: 

1. The appellants in these proceedings have made an application for a stay of one of the orders made by the Land Court.  That order is the order determining the amount of compensation to be paid by the respondent to the appellants.  There are outstanding issues of costs before the Land Court.  The appellants wish to avoid the expense of making submissions in respect of those issues.  The means by which they have attempted to do that is by seeking an order that the order containing the assessment be stayed.  The respondent is prepared to consent to such an order.

2. The usual reason for granting a stay of an order in a lower court pending the determination of an appeal is that the appellant, if successful, may be deprived of the fruits of that success.  There was no suggestion of that in this case.

3. No authority was cited for the proposition that the existence of an outstanding issue as to costs at first instance provides a proper ground for a stay because it would avoid the incurring of costs.  It is, therefore, doubtful that this consideration is relevant to the exercise of the discretion.

4. In any event, it is far from clear to me that it would be appropriate if a stay were granted for the Land Court to refrain from dealing with costs issues.  That may or may not be the case and it would, no doubt, depend both upon the evidence placed before the learned Member, if the application were made to vary the existing directions, together with his assessment of submissions made in support of the application.

5. In those circumstances, it does not seem to me to be appropriate to make the order sought, notwithstanding it was sought by consent.  I would, therefore, not be prepared to make order 1 which appears on the draft that was placed before us.

PRESIDENT MacDONALD: 

1. I agree with the reasons of Peter Lyons J.

MEMBER SMITH:

1. I agree with the reasons of Peter Lyons J.

ORDER

The application for a stay is refused.

LYONS J

CAC MacDONALD

PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT

PA SMITH

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT