Reed v QCoal Sonoma Pty Ltd - [2014] QLAC 8

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Reed v QCoal Sonoma Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QLAC 8

PARTIES:

GARRY ARTHUR REED

(Appellant)

and

QCOAL SONOMA PTY LTD, CSE SONOMA PTY LTD, JS SONOMA PTY LTD and WATAMI (QLD) PTY LTD

(Second Respondents)

FILE NO:

Appeal No. LAC003-14

Land Court No WAA114-13

DIVISION:

Land Appeal Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

1 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

8 September 2014

THE COURT:

North J

PA Smith, Member of the Land Court

WL Cochrane, Member of the Land Court

ORDER:

The appeal be allowed;1.

The orders of the Land Court in proceeding WAA114-13 made on 16 April 2014 be set aside; 2.

The appellant be released from further compliance with his undertaking given on 23 July 2014;3.

4.   The second respondents pay to the appellant his costs of and incidental to the appeal to this court (including reserved costs if any) to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – whether appeal or part of an appeal “frivolous or vexatious” – whether circumstances existed enlivening a discretion to order costs against a party.

LEGISLATION:

Land Court Act 2000 s 34;s 72; s 877; s 878; s 882

CASES:

De Tornouer v Department of Natural Resources and Water (2009) QLAC 6

Chrismel Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLAC 0031

Ebis Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2011] QCA 15

House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499

Mudie v Gainriver Pty Ltd (No 2)[2003] 2Qd R 271

R v District Court: ex parte White (1966) 116 CLR 664

Reed v Department of Natural Resources and Mines & Ors (No 3) (2014) QLC 13

Stevenson Group Investments Pty Ltd v Nunn & Ors [2012] QCA 351

COUNSEL:

D Yarrow for the Appellant

M F Johnston for the Respondents

SOLICITORS:

P&E Law for the Appellant

McCullough Robertson for the Respondents

THE COURT: This appeal is from an order made in the Land Court on 16 April 2014 in favour of the second respondents against the appellant that he pay certain of the costs incurred by the second respondent in proceedings in the Land Court initiated by the appellant. The orders made by the learned member were:

“1. The appellant pay on the standard basis the costs of the second respondents of and incidental to the appeal from 13 December 2013 to the extent that those costs relate to Ground 1 of the appeal, namely setting aside the review decision. These costs will include allowances to witnesses attending for giving evidence at the appeal in relation to Ground 1.

2. Such costs are to be agreed between the parties within one month of the making of this order.

3. In the absence of agreement within one month, the costs and the appropriate scale to be used are to be decided by the appropriate assessing officer of the Supreme Court".

The order concerns an appeal by…

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 Reed v QCoal Sonoma 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: [2014] QLAC 8
Decision Date: 1 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Reed v QCoal Sonoma Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from a mining operation's impact on a neighbouring property, leading to a legal battle over liability and compensation. The Supreme Court of Western Australia was tasked with addressing the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the costs incurred during the appeal. The appellant, Reed, contested the respondent's argument that the appeal was frivolous or vexatious, a contention that could result in costs being awarded against him. The court's decision hinged on whether the appeal contained elements that justified such a discretionary order.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appeal, or a part of it, could be deemed frivolous or vexatious under the relevant legislative provisions. This required the court to assess the merits and conduct of the appeal, considering whether the appellant's actions or claims had any reasonable prospect of success or were brought for an improper purpose. The court needed to balance the protection of the judicial process against the potential deterrence of legitimate appeals by imposing costs.

The court concluded that the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious. It found that the appellant had a reasonable prospect of success on the appeal, and the appeal was brought in good faith. The court determined that the circumstances did not warrant an order for costs against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted relief from his undertaking. Additionally, the court ordered the second respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, reflecting the absence of any merit in the respondent's contention regarding the nature of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be allowed;1.

The orders of the Land Court in proceeding WAA114-13 made on 16 April 2014 be set aside; 2.

The appellant be released from further compliance with his undertaking given on 23 July 2014;3.

4. The second respondents pay to the appellant his costs of and incidental to the appeal to this court (including reserved costs if any) to be assessed on the standard basis.

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:	Reed v QCoal Sonoma Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QLAC 8
PARTIES:	GARRY ARTHUR REED (Appellant) and QCOAL SONOMA PTY LTD, CSE SONOMA PTY LTD, JS SONOMA PTY LTD and WATAMI (QLD) PTY LTD (Second Respondents)
FILE NO:	Appeal No. LAC003-14 Land Court No WAA114-13
DIVISION:	Land Appeal Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Land Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	1 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	8 September 2014
THE COURT:	North J PA Smith, Member of the Land Court WL Cochrane, Member of the Land Court
ORDER:	The appeal be allowed;1. The orders of the Land Court in proceeding WAA114-13 made on 16 April 2014 be set aside; 2. The appellant be released from further compliance with his undertaking given on 23 July 2014;3. 4. The second respondents pay to the appellant his costs of and incidental to the appeal to this court (including reserved costs if any) to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – whether appeal or part of an appeal “frivolous or vexatious” – whether circumstances existed enlivening a discretion to order costs against a party.
LEGISLATION:	Land Court Act 2000 s 34;s 72; s 877; s 878; s 882
CASES:	De Tornouer v Department of Natural Resources and Water (2009) QLAC 6 Chrismel Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLAC 0031 Ebis Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2011] QCA 15 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Mudie v Gainriver Pty Ltd (No 2)[2003] 2Qd R 271 R v District Court: ex parte White (1966) 116 CLR 664 Reed v Department of Natural Resources and Mines & Ors (No 3) (2014) QLC 13 Stevenson Group Investments Pty Ltd v Nunn & Ors [2012] QCA 351
COUNSEL:	D Yarrow for the Appellant M F Johnston for the Respondents
SOLICITORS:	P&E Law for the Appellant McCullough Robertson for the Respondents