Ipswich City Council v BWP Management Limited - [2019] QLAC 1

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ipswich City Council v BWP Management Limited & Anor [2019] QLAC 1

Ipswich City Council

(appellant)

v

BWP Management LimitedACN 082 856 424(first respondent)
and

W & V Nominees Pty Ltd as Tte for the Elton Family Trust No. 3
ACN 606 755 239

(second respondent)

FILE NOs:

LAC003-18

Land Court No LGR282-16, LGR283-16

DIVISION:

Land Appeal Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 February 2019

THE COURT:

Mullins J
FY Kingham, President of the Land Court
WA Isdale, Member of the Land Court

ORDERS:

The appeal is allowed. 1.

The decision and orders made on 13 June 2018 by the Land Court in LGR282-16 and LGR 283-16 are set aside and substituted by the following orders: 2.

The rating category for the rateable land known as West Ipswich Bunnings for the rating period from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016 under the City of Ipswich Budget 2015-2016 is Category 52a.(a)

The rating category for the rateable land known as Springfield Bunnings for the rating period from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016 under the City of Ipswich Budget 2015-2016 is Category 52a. (b)

Unless either party provides written submissions within 14 days seeking different orders, costs follow the event.3.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – ERROR OF LAW – INTERPRETATION – REFERENCE TO CONTEXT – where dispute at first instance about which rating category applied to the land – where the Member found that two rating categories applied and decided the rating category that imposed the lesser burden was the correct rating category for the land – where the Court found that, interpreted in context, only one rating category could apply

REAL PROPERTY – RATES AND CHARGES – RATING OF LAND – categories of land – where appellant decided the correct category was 52a Drive-In Shopping Centre – where the respondent contended the correct rating category was 44b Shop – Single – where it was decided the correct category was 52a Drive-In Shopping Centre

Local Government Regulation2012 s 80, s 81, s 93

AAD Design Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2013] 1 Qd R 1; [2012] QCA 44, applied

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40, cited
Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, applied
BWP Management Limited 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, considered

Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour Ltd v Fuller (1986) 161 CLR 47; [1986] HCA 42, cited

De Tournouer v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Resource Management [2011] 1 Qd R 200; [2009] QCA 395, cited
Mahoney & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads (2014) 206 LGERA 302;

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 Ipswich City Council v BWP Management Limited 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] QLAC 1
Decision Date: 21 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ipswich City Council brought an appeal against BWP Management Limited in relation to the determination of the correct rating category for two properties, known as West Ipswich Bunnings and Springfield Bunnings. The dispute originated in the Land Court, which had ruled that two rating categories applied to the properties. The Member of the Land Court determined that the category imposing the lesser burden was the correct one. However, the appeal was brought to the Queensland Court of Appeal on the grounds that the Land Court had erred in its interpretation of the rating categories.

The primary legal issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the Land Court had correctly interpreted the rating categories in question. The Court needed to determine whether the Land Court had properly considered the context in which the rating categories applied and whether the Land Court had erred in finding that two categories applied when the context suggested only one category was applicable. This interpretation of the rating categories was crucial to determining the correct category for the properties in question.

In considering the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the Land Court had erred in its interpretation of the rating categories. The Court determined that, when interpreted in context, only one rating category applied to the properties. Consequently, the Court of Appeal found that the Land Court's decision that two categories applied was incorrect. As a result, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the decision and orders made by the Land Court. The Court substituted the Land Court's orders with new orders, specifying that the correct rating category for the properties for the relevant rating period was Category 52a.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the decisions and orders made by the Land Court on 13 June 2018 be set aside and replaced with new orders. Specifically, the Court ordered that the rating category for both West Ipswich Bunnings and Springfield Bunnings for the rating period from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016 under the City of Ipswich Budget 2015-2016 was Category 52a. The Court noted that unless either party provided written submissions within 14 days seeking different orders, costs would follow the event.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is allowed. 1.

The decision and orders made on 13 June 2018 by the Land Court in LGR282-16 and LGR 283-16 are set aside and substituted by the following orders: 2.

The rating category for the rateable land known as West Ipswich Bunnings for the rating period from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016 under the City of Ipswich Budget 2015-2016 is Category 52a.(a)

The rating category for the rateable land known as Springfield Bunnings for the rating period from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016 under the City of Ipswich Budget 2015-2016 is Category 52a. (b)

Unless either party provides written submissions within 14 days seeking different orders, costs follow the event.3.

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:	Ipswich City Council v BWP Management Limited & Anor [2019] QLAC 1
Ipswich City Council (appellant) v BWP Management LimitedACN 082 856 424(first respondent) and W & V Nominees Pty Ltd as Tte for the Elton Family Trust No. 3 ACN 606 755 239 (second respondent)
FILE NOs:	LAC003-18 Land Court No LGR282-16, LGR283-16
DIVISION:	Land Appeal Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland
ORIGINATING COURT:	Land Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	21 June 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 February 2019
THE COURT:	Mullins J FY Kingham, President of the Land Court WA Isdale, Member of the Land Court
ORDERS:	The appeal is allowed. 1. The decision and orders made on 13 June 2018 by the Land Court in LGR282-16 and LGR 283-16 are set aside and substituted by the following orders: 2. The rating category for the rateable land known as West Ipswich Bunnings for the rating period from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016 under the City of Ipswich Budget 2015-2016 is Category 52a.(a) The rating category for the rateable land known as Springfield Bunnings for the rating period from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016 under the City of Ipswich Budget 2015-2016 is Category 52a. (b) Unless either party provides written submissions within 14 days seeking different orders, costs follow the event.3.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – ERROR OF LAW – INTERPRETATION – REFERENCE TO CONTEXT – where dispute at first instance about which rating category applied to the land – where the Member found that two rating categories applied and decided the rating category that imposed the lesser burden was the correct rating category for the land – where the Court found that, interpreted in context, only one rating category could apply REAL PROPERTY – RATES AND CHARGES – RATING OF LAND – categories of land – where appellant decided the correct category was 52a Drive-In Shopping Centre – where the respondent contended the correct rating category was 44b Shop – Single – where it was decided the correct category was 52a Drive-In Shopping Centre Local Government Regulation2012 s 80, s 81, s 93 AAD Design Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2013] 1 Qd R 1; [2012] QCA 44, applied Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40, cited Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, applied BWP Management Limited 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, considered Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour Ltd v Fuller (1986) 161 CLR 47; [1986] HCA 42, cited De Tournouer v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Resource Management [2011] 1 Qd R 200; [2009] QCA 395, cited Mahoney & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads (2014) 206 LGERA 302;