Mitchell v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2008] QLC 215

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Mitchell & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0215
PARTIES:	Ian J and Pauline J Mitchell & Ors (appellants)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (respondent)
FILE NOS:	RV2006/0158 and Ors
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Application for costs.
DELIVERED ON:	5 December 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Brisbane (by teleconference)
MEMBER:	Mr BR O’Connor
ORDER:	No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	Costs – alleged invalid application – costs sought against applicant – refused.
APPEARANCES:	Mr A Boyd, for appellants. Mr W Isdale, Counsel, Crown Law for the respondent.

1. A range of test cases in appeals against determinations made under the Valuation of Land Act were heard in various centres in Western Queensland earlier this year by former Land Court President (Mr Trickett).  Decisions were handed down in these and Court determinations also made in a number of related cases.  However there are still many outstanding related appeals, some of which are represented by Mr Alister Boyd as agent, some by other solicitors and a third category of self-represented landowners. 

2. Mr Boyd is anxious that his cases be finalised expeditiously and suggests that the test cases and other determinations should prove a most useful guide for settlements.  Mr Boyd indicated that his understanding from a telephone conversation with the former President’s Deputy Registrar following the western appeals that the President directed that the parties commence negotiations with a view to settling outstanding cases.

3. To this end, Mr Boyd lodged an application with the Land Court dated 17 September 2008 to progress this direction.  He sought times and venues for his remaining cases to be heard or mediated. 

4. This application was heard by the Court (Judicial Registrar) on 24 September 2008 by teleconference with Mr Boyd and Mr W Isdale (counsel, Crown Law) representing the respondent.  Mr Isdale suggested the application was invalid in that the former President would not have “directed” that the parties resume negotiations on outstanding matters.  (It now seems, which Mr Boyd readily concedes, that it was more of a “suggestion” from the former President rather than a direction.)  Nevertheless Mr Isdale seeks costs for the Department having to attend and address a misconceived application. 

5. Relevant to a decision on this costs application is:

   ·    The lengthy history of these western appeals.

   ·    Their ongoing nature.

   ·    The pressure placed by the landowners on their agents to finalise matters.

   ·    The perhaps understandable confusion by Mr Boyd between the “suggestion” of the former President conveyed by his Deputy and what Mr Boyd thought to have been a “direction”.

6. In all the circumstances, I do not consider an order for costs should be made in relation to the application of 17 September 2008. 

7. For completeness, it should be mentioned that a further directions hearings will be held in these matters on 20 November 2008 which has resulted in the matter being considerably progressed.  Agreement has now been reached on exchange of valuation figures now being relied upon.  (Mr Boyd has agreed to submit his amended values to the Department first).  Several of the matters may now be settled after this exchange with those still outstanding then to be referred to mediation in Blackall and Barcaldine on the week commencing 16 March 2009.

BR O’CONNOR

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT