Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Leacy (No. 2) - [2016] QLAC 5

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Leacy (No. 2) [2016] QLAC 5
PARTIES:	SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL (appellant) v EDNA JOYCE LEACY AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH GEORGE LEACY AND EDNA JOYCE LEACY (respondent)
FILE NOS:	LAC No.002-15 Land Court No. AQL033-08
DIVISION:	Land Appeal Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Application for costs and interest
ORIGINATING COURT:	Land Court at Brisbane
DELIVEREDON:	24 June 2016
DELIVEREDAT:	Brisbane
HEARINGDATE:	Submissions on the papers
JUDGE:	Peter Lyons J W.L. Cochrane (Member) W.A. Isdale (Member)
ORDERS:	1. The order for costs made in the Land Court is set aside, and there is to be no order for costs. 2. The respondent is to pay two-thirds of the appellant’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS –Land Court – s 27 Acquisition of Land Act 1967 – party who can claim – position closer to compensation determined –Court to act judicially –relevant considerations – established principles – substantial success on claim – contested issues –correct conclusion –no order for costs. PROCEDURE – COSTS –Land Appeal Court –success on single issue –failure on other issues –balancing outcomes –respondent pay two thirds on standard basis.

Banno v Commonwealth (1993) 45 FCR 32 Commissioner for Railways v Buckler [1996] 1 Qd R 18 JT and LJ Barnes v Director-General Department of Transport (1987) 18 QLCR 133

Leacy v Sunshine Coast Regional Council (No 2) [2015] QLC 39

Minister for Environment v Florence (1979) 21 SASR 108 North Albury Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Albury Municipal Council (1983) 49 LGRA 215

Acquisition of Land Act 1967 Land Court Act 2000

COUNSEL:
D.R. Gore QC and M. Gynther for the applicant

G.W. Diehm QC and S.M. Ure for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Garland Waddington for the applicant

Butler McDermott Lawyers for the respondent

THE COURT

[1] On 21 June 2016 this Court delivered reasons in which compensation for the resumption of the respondent’s land was assessed at $3,428,321. The result, therefore, is that the appellant has successfully appealed against the determination of the Land Court of compensation in an amount of $4,562,544.

[2] The appellant now seeks costs orders. It seeks an order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of, and incidental to, the appeal on the standard basis. It also seeks an order that the respondent pay 80 per cent of the appellant’s costs of the hearing in the Land Court, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Submissions

[3] For the appellant, reliance was placed upon the substantial difference between the amount claimed by the respondent, and the ultimate determination of compensation1. The respondent had claimed $6,351,800 for compensation, with an additional amount for disturbance; while the appellant’s valuation finally put in evidence (and not including disturbance) was $2,570,000. Disturbance was fixed in the Land Court at $16,071, and was not in issue in this Court. The appellant submitted that the difference between the amount claimed and the amount awarded was a…

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.

Continue reading Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Leacy (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Leacy (No. 2) [2016] QLAC 5
Case: [2016] QLAC 5
Decision Date: 24 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sunshine Coast Regional Council was involved in a legal dispute with Leacy, which was ultimately determined by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The matter pertained to costs associated with the acquisition of land under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. The Land Court had previously ruled on the allocation of costs between the parties, but the Court of Appeal was called upon to review and revise this decision.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal revolved around the principles governing the allocation of costs in cases where one party has achieved substantial success on a particular claim but not on others. The Court had to determine whether the original cost order was appropriate and, if not, what adjustment should be made. The appeal court was tasked with considering the established principles of cost allocation, particularly in the context of a party who is closer to the compensation determined by the court.

The Court of Appeal found that the Land Court had not correctly applied the principles for determining costs in this case. The court had to act judicially and consider all relevant factors, including the overall success of the parties and the contested nature of the issues. The Court held that because the appellant achieved substantial success on a key claim but not on others, the original cost order was not appropriate. Consequently, the Court set aside the original order and made a new order that there would be no costs awarded to either party in the Land Court proceedings. However, for the appeal itself, the Court ordered that the respondent should pay two-thirds of the appellant’s costs on the standard basis.

In summary, the Court of Appeal set aside the original order for costs and directed that no costs should be awarded in the Land Court. Additionally, the Court ordered the respondent to pay two-thirds of the appellant's costs for the appeal, reflecting the partial success achieved by the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The order for costs made in the Land Court is set aside, and there is to be no order for costs.

2. The respondent is to pay two-thirds of the appellant’s costs of the appeal, 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.