Jensen v Valuer-General (No 3)

[2023] QLC 19

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jensen & Anor v Valuer-General (No 3) [2023] QLC 19

PARTIES:

Matthew Ronald Jensen and Stewart Christian Jensen as Tte
(appellants)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:

LVA198-21

DIVISION:

General

PROCEEDING:

Application for costs

DELIVERED ON:

30 October 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

Submissions closed 23 October 2023

HEARD AT:

Heard on the papers

A/PRESIDENT:

PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:

The Jensens must pay the Valuer-General’s costs of and incidental to the notice issued by the Jensens under section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) on a standard basis. 1.

Unless ordered otherwise, each party is to bear their own costs of and incidental to the appeal.2.    

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – COSTS – where parties both seek costs under the Land Valuation Act 2010 – where Valuer-General submits that application was frivolous or vexatious – where Appellant submits that Valuer-General did not properly discharge her responsibilities – whether costs should be awarded.

Land Court Act 2000 (Qld) s 27A
Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld) s 171

Casley v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] HCATrans 590, distinguished
GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General [2019] QLC 8, distinguished
Reed v QCoal Sonoma Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QLAC 8, applied
Williams v Department of Environment and Resource Management [2014] QLAC 10, distinguished

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

1. Both parties have applied for cost orders in the wake of my decision[1] about the value of the Jensens’ land at Yungaburra.

   [1]Jensen & Anor as Tte v Valuer-General [2023] QLC 13

1. There are three different issues.

1.          The reserved costs of the Valuer-General’s application to set aside a subpoena filed 19 June 2023.

2.          The Valuer-General submits that the Jensens should pay the costs of and incidental to the Jensens’ submission that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because their land was part of a separate sovereign nation.[2]

3.          The Jensens say that the Valuer-General should pay their costs of the hearing.

[2]Jensen & Anor as Tte v Valuer-General [2022] QLC 23

The reserved costs

1. The Valuer-General submits that each party should bear their own costs. The Jensens submit that the Valuer-General should not have her costs of that application. The effect of the submissions is the same; that the Valuer-General should not have her costs of the application. I agree.

The costs of the jurisdiction submission

1. The Valuer-General relies on section 171(2)(a) of the Land Valuation Act 2010 which provides that the Court may make a costs order if all or part of the appeal was frivolous or vexatious.

1. The Valuer-General submits that the jurisdiction submission was frivolous and/or vexatious by reference to my comments in the reasons for decision:

1.          That none of the Federal Court determinations about native title rights extended to the area on which the Jensens’ land sits.[3]

[3]Jensen & Anor as Tte v Valuer-General [2022] QLC 23 [3].

2.          That the Jensens did not provide…