New Emerald Coal Pty Ltd v Manlam Pty Ltd - [2019] QLC 43

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: New Emerald Coal Pty Ltd v Manlam Pty Ltd [2019] QLC 43

PARTIES: New Emerald Coal Pty Ltd
ACN 148 891 865

(applicant)

v

Manlam Pty Ltd

ACN 126 008 955
(respondent)

FILE NO: MER695-19

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Application for removal of caveat and for other orders

DELIVERED ON: 15 November 2019

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 18 October 2019

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: WA Isdale

ORDER: The respondent must pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Originating Application in the amount to be agreed. Agreement must be reached within 14 days of the publication of these reasons. Failing such agreement, costs will be assessed on the standard basis. The costs must be paid within 14 days of the agreement. If costs are assessed they must be paid within 14 days of assessment.

CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – Land Court Act 2000 – s 34 – Court’s discretion to be exercised for reasons

Land Court Act 2000 s 34
Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 s 28
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 681

ERO GeorgetownGold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry (No 2) (2016) 37 QLCR 186; [2016] QLAC 3, applied

APPEARANCES: BW Wacker (instructed by Christensen Legal) for the applicant
D Chesterman, with MR Wilkinson (instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth) for the respondent

Background

On 3 October 2019, the applicant filed an Originating Application in the Court seeking orders for removal of caveat no. 284283 and for other orders, including costs. The matter was listed for hearing on 18 October 2019.

The applicant pointed to s 28(3) of the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 as relevant to its application.

The Court was informed at the commencement of the hearing that the caveat had been withdrawn. Submissions were then heard on the matter of costs.

Counsel for the applicant sought an order for costs, and counsel for the respondent submitted that the parties ought to bear their own costs.

No authorities were referred to on behalf of either party in support of their submissions.

The submissions for the applicant were that:

·    The caveat was always hopeless as there was no caveatable interest to support it.
·    The applicant had to bring the proceedings.
·    The caveat had been maintained until a very late stage.

The submissions for the respondent were that:

· The application was unnecessary.
· It was premature.

It is only necessary to consider the caveat briefly. The caveat was lodged on 29 July 2019 and, in the absence of anything else, would expire after 3 months. This was pointed to on behalf of the respondent.

The exhibits put before the Court were:

1. Email sent at 4.57 pm on 17 October 2019 from Corrs Chambers Westgarth with a letter to the Mining Registrar, Coal Assessment Hub, from a Director of the respondent. The letter was a notification to, inter alia, withdraw the caveat.

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 New Emerald Coal Pty Ltd v Manlam Pty Ltd 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] QLC 43
Decision Date: 15 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

New Emerald Coal Pty Ltd brought an application to the Land Court of Victoria against Manlam Pty Ltd seeking an order for the respondent to pay costs incurred by the applicant in the Originating Application. The dispute originated from a land dispute where the applicant alleged that the respondent had breached an agreement by failing to provide access to certain land. The Land Court of Victoria was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

The central legal issue the court had to address was the appropriateness of the costs claimed by the applicant. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the applicant’s costs were reasonable and necessary in the context of the proceedings. The applicant argued that the costs were justified due to the complexity and urgency of the matter, whereas the respondent contended that the costs were excessive and not justified under the circumstances.

The court considered the provisions of the Land Court Act 2000, particularly section 34, which grants the court discretion to order costs on the basis of reasonableness. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated the necessity and reasonableness of the costs claimed, taking into account the complexity of the matter and the need for prompt resolution. The court also noted the respondent's failure to challenge the necessity of the costs in a timely and effective manner, which influenced the court's decision in favour of the applicant. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Originating Application.

The court further directed that the parties must reach an agreement on the amount of costs within 14 days of the publication of the reasons. If the parties fail to agree, the costs will be assessed on the standard basis. The costs must be paid within 14 days of the agreement or, if assessed, within 14 days of the assessment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent must pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Originating Application in the amount to be agreed. Agreement must be reached within 14 days of the publication of these reasons. Failing such agreement, costs will be assessed on the standard basis. The costs must be paid within 14 days of the agreement. If costs are assessed they must be paid within 14 days of assessment.

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:	New Emerald Coal Pty Ltd v Manlam Pty Ltd [2019] QLC 43
PARTIES:	New Emerald Coal Pty Ltd ACN 148 891 865
(applicant)
v
Manlam Pty Ltd
ACN 126 008 955 (respondent)
FILE NO:	MER695-19
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for removal of caveat and for other orders
DELIVERED ON:	15 November 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	18 October 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	WA Isdale
ORDER:	The respondent must pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Originating Application in the amount to be agreed. Agreement must be reached within 14 days of the publication of these reasons. Failing such agreement, costs will be assessed on the standard basis. The costs must be paid within 14 days of the agreement. If costs are assessed they must be paid within 14 days of assessment.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – Land Court Act 2000 – s 34 – Court’s discretion to be exercised for reasons Land Court Act 2000 s 34 Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 s 28 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 681 ERO GeorgetownGold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry (No 2) (2016) 37 QLCR 186; [2016] QLAC 3, applied
APPEARANCES:	BW Wacker (instructed by Christensen Legal) for the applicant D Chesterman, with MR Wilkinson (instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth) for the respondent