Kozik v Redland City Council

The plaintiffs, owners of waterfront residences in the Redland City local government area, sought to recover special charges levied by the defendant Council to fund lake and canal works and services. The Council passed resolutions to levy these charges without complying with mandatory provisions in the relevant regulations. The Council refunded the amount of the special charges that had not been spent on the services, but contended it was not lawfully obliged to return the spent portion of the special charges. The plaintiffs argued that the Council's failure to comply with the regulations rendered the special charges invalid and therefore the Council was obligated to return the balance of the special charges.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the balance of the special charges, whether the Council was obligated to return the percentage of invalid special charges, and whether the Council could avoid its statutory obligation to return the balance of the special charges by defence that to do so would unjustly enrich the plaintiffs and group members. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiffs could recover the balance of the special charges as money had and received.

The court held that the Council was not lawfully obliged to return the spent portion of the special charges as this would unjustly enrich the plaintiffs and group members. The court found that by reason of the invalid resolutions, the Council had no right to make, use or retain any part of the special charges. However, the services had conferred some benefit on the plaintiffs and group members. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the balance of the special charges as money had and received. The court further held that the Council was obligated to return the percentage of invalid special charges.

The court made orders pursuant to section 103X of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) to determine the group members affected by this judgment and answered the amended agreed questions common to the group members. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the balance of the special charges as money had and received.