SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Redland City Council v Kozik & Ors [2022] QCA 158
PARTIES:
REDLAND CITY COUNCIL
(appellant)
v
JOHN MICHAEL KOZIK
(first respondent)
SIMON JOHN AKERO
(second respondent)
SARAH AKERO
(third respondent)
NEIL ROBERT COLLIER
(fourth respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 11735 of 2021
SC No 11364 of 2018DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2021] QSC 233 (Bradley J)DELIVERED ON:
26 August 2022
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
4 April 2022
JUDGES:
McMurdo JA and Boddice and Callaghan JJ
ORDERS:
1. Allow the appeal in part.
2. Allow the cross appeal.
3. Set aside the answers to the agreed questions common to the group members and substitute the following answers:
a. Question 1: No;
b. Question 2: No;
c. Question 3:
(i) 3(a): No; and
(ii) 3(b): No.
d. Question 4:
(i) 4(a): Not necessary to answer;
(ii) 4(b): Not necessary to answer.
e. Question 5:
(i) 5(a): Yes, at the point of payment of the special rate and charge levied; and
(ii) 5(b): No.
4. Otherwise dismiss the appeal.
5. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal and the cross appeal.
CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – RATES AND CHARGES – RATING OF LAND – RECOVERY OF RATES – GENERALLY – where the respondents owned waterfront residences on land within the Redland City Council (“the Council”) local government area – where the Council purported to pass resolutions levying special charges upon the respondents’ land to fund waterway services – where the respondents paid the special charges and the Council expended a portion of those charges on the services – where the resolutions did not comply with mandatory provisions in the relevant local government regulations and were therefore invalid – where the Council refunded to the respondents the amount of the special charges that had not been expended on the services – where the applicable local government regulations contained provisions obliging the Council to return special charges in certain situations (the “return regulations”) – whether the return regulations were engaged
EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – MISTAKE – RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID OR EXPENDED – UNJUST ENRICHMENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the respondents paid the special charges in the belief that they were legally obliged to do so – where this belief was a mistake of law – where the respondents were entitled, prima facie, to the return of the special charges unless the Council could point to circumstances which would make an order for restitution unjust – where the Council contended that repaying the special charges would unjustly enrich the respondents – where the Council contended that the special charges were paid “for good consideration”, being the provision of the services which benefited the respondents’ land – where consideration, in this context, means the matter considered by the payer informing the decision to pay rather than any benefit to the payer which subsequently ensues – where the state of affairs existing in the respondents’…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Redland City Council v Kozik 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] QCA 158
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues were whether the local government regulations obliged the Council to return the special charges and, if so, whether the respondents were unjustly enriched by retaining the refund. The Council argued that repaying the special charges would unjustly enrich the respondents because they were paid for the provision of services that benefited the respondents' land. The respondents, however, contended that they were entitled to the return of the special charges unless the Council could point to circumstances which would make an order for restitution unjust.
The court found that the local government regulations did indeed require the Council to return the special charges. The court also held that the respondents were not unjustly enriched by retaining the refund because the state of affairs existing in their minds was that they were obliged to pay the special charges as levied. The court concluded that there was no failure of consideration as the consideration, in this context, means the matter considered by the payer informing the decision to pay rather than any benefit to the payer which subsequently ensues. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal in part, allowed the cross appeal, and set aside the answers to the agreed questions common to the group members, substituting specific answers to the questions. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal and the cross appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Allow the appeal in part.
2. Allow the cross appeal.
3. Set aside the answers to the agreed questions common to the group members and substitute the following answers:
a. Question 1: No;
b. Question 2: No;
c. Question 3:
(i) 3(a): No; and
(ii) 3(b): No.
d. Question 4:
(i) 4(a): Not necessary to answer;
(ii) 4(b): Not necessary to answer.
e. Question 5:
(i) 5(a): Yes, at the point of payment of the special rate and charge levied; and
(ii) 5(b): No.
4. Otherwise dismiss the appeal.
5. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal and the cross appeal.
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.