Ryan v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

Myles and Carol Ryan appeal the determination of the unimproved value of their land at Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, made by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources. The Chief Executive had valued the land at $120,000 on 23 October 1998, a valuation the Chief Executive confirmed on 18 May 1999 following an objection by the appellants. The appellants lodged an appeal on 15 June 1999, claiming the value should be $75,000. They sought leave to participate in a Court-supervised preliminary conference in an attempt to settle the matter. A preliminary conference was scheduled for 21 February 2000, but the appellants did not appear. They later missed another preliminary conference on 7 August 2000. The matter was rescheduled for a hearing on 25 October 2000, but the appellants did not appear, nor did they respond to any correspondence from the Court. The Court struck out the appeal for want of prosecution, and the respondent applied for costs.

The court must determine whether to award costs to the respondent and, if so, the appropriate quantum of costs. The Land Court Act 2000 provides for the awarding of costs in certain circumstances. Generally, costs are only awarded in extraordinary circumstances, such as when a party acts frivolously or vexatiously. The respondent argues that the appellants showed little regard for the time and costs incurred by the Court and the respondent, as evidenced by their failure to follow up on their appeal. They submit that the appellants' lack of interest displayed a lack of consideration for the impact on other parties. The respondent seeks either a fixed quantum of costs or an assessment by the Supreme Court on the Supreme Court scale.

The court considers the relevant authorities, including Queensland Landmark Developments Ltd v. Valuer-General, Bowden v. The Valuer-General, RJ Scougall v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, and Collins Foods International (Properties) No. 2 Pty Ltd v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources. The court finds some similarity to the circumstances in Collins, although the appellants were entirely responsible for any administrative inefficiency in their own record-keeping. The court distinguishes Collins on the circumstance that the appellants were not well-informed litigants and were presumably not fully aware of the implications of not following through on their responsibility. The court also considers recent applications for costs where there were no appearances by appellants. In those matters, the costs awarded were restricted to the preparation and appearance by counsel for the respondent. The court exercises its discretion to restrict any costs to a comparable quantum and awards costs to a total of $200 on a similar basis.

The appellants are to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200).