Pejama Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2007] QLC 14
•9 March 2007
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Pejama Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2007] QLC 0014 PARTIES: Pejama Pty Ltd
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO.: AV2006/0699 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Jurisdiction – Appeal against unimproved valuation DELIVERED ON: 9 March 2007 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER Mr BR O'Connor, Judicial Registrar ORDER: The matter is struck out for want of prosecution. Costs awarded to respondent.
CATCHWORDS: Jurisdiction – striking out – costs. APPEARANCES: No appearance by appellant.
Ms C Liu, (Senior Lawyer, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources and Water) for the respondent
This matter (the 2004 appeal) was set down for hearing to determine whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal lodged on 23 August 2006, some five days outside the prescribed time.
An earlier appeal (the 2002 appeal) relating to a 1 October 2002 determination on the same property was withdrawn by the appellant on 4 September 2006. This withdrawal was confirmed by Court letter to the appellant dated 29 September 2006 (reference AV2005/0235).
The jurisdiction hearing on the 2004 appeal was set down initially for hearing on 31 January 2007. The respondent's legal representative attended the hearing but there was no appearance for the appellant. The respondent agreed to have the matter adjourned until 22 February 2007 in the event that the appellant may have some explanation for non-attendance.
The Land Court deputy registrar (Mr Laaja) contacted Mr Stay (the principal of the appellant company) by telephone on the same day (31 January 2007) to enquire as to Mr Stay's non-appearance. Mr Stay advised that he was not aware that the matter had been set down but indicated that he would be pursuing the appeal and agreed to have the matter set down for a subsequent hearing.
The matter was set down for 21 February and the appellant and respondent advised in writing.
About 9.30 a.m. on the morning of 21 February 2007 before the hearing commenced, Mr Stay rang the Land Court registrar to advise that he proposed to withdraw. He did not make contact with the Department at that time. Later that day Mr Stay faxed to the Court a copy of a withdrawal letter from the Court of 29 September 2006. Perhaps Mr Stay was not totally aware that such related to the 2002 appeal.
Counsel for Department of Natural Resources and Water sought that the jurisdiction matter be struck out for want of prosecution. An order was made to that effect.
Further the respondent sought an amount of $500 for costs incurred at this 21 February 2007 hearing. No decision was made at the hearing on the cost application as I wished to investigate the background before making a decision on such application.
Having done so, I consider a case has been made out for an award of costs. Mr Stay was contacted after the initial jurisdiction hearing when he advised that he wished to proceed further. A new date was then set. He did not attend such or advise the Department. His subsequent facsimile related to the withdrawal of an earlier proceeding on the same property.
The respondent is awarded costs in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500).
BR O'CONNOR
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR
0
0
0