The Trustees of the Lang Park Trust v Brisbane City Council

[1990] QLC 34

[1990] QLC 34

 

  LAND COURT,

BRISBANE.

23rd November, 1990.

Re:     Claim for Compensation
  Land Taken for Road Purposes.
  A90-12.

The Trustees of the Lang Park Trust
  v.
  Brisbane City Council

Application for Costs

Compensation in this matter was determined in the sum of $760,635 by judgment delivered on 12th November, 1990.  Interest at the rate of 13 per cent per annum was awarded.
           The claim for compensation as filed in the Land Court Registry was in the sum of $2,709,580.  Leave was not sought to formally amend the claim although evidence was led during the hearing to a lesser, unquantified amount.
           The amount of the valuation finally put in evidence by the respondent was $574,980.  An advance in the sum of $594,683 had been paid.
The respondent seeks costs of and incidental to the hearing, as provided under Section 27 of the Acquisition of Land Act of 1967 (as amended), which reads:-

1. Subject to this section, the costs of and incidental to the hearing and determination by the Land Court of a claim for compensation under this Act shall be in the discretion of that Court.

2. If the amount of compensation as determined is the amount finally claimed by the claimant in the proceedings or is nearer to that amount than to the amount of the valuation finally put in evidence by the constructing authority, costs, if any, shall be awarded to the claimant;  otherwise costs, if any, shall be awarded to the constructing authority.

   The determination in this matter is such that costs might be awarded only to the respondent.  The claimant submits that, as the determination results in a sum significantly in excess of the respondent's valuation, each party should bear its own costs.
   This matter was unusual in that the land had been granted in trust under the Land Act and the first matter to be resolved was whether the claimant was entitled to compensation under the headings of "loss of land" and "loss in value of land". The opposing submissions by senior counsel for both parties suggests it was reasonable that this aspect alone be brought to the Court for decision. I found in favour of the respondent and no compensation was awarded under thess headings. It is relevant that had I found otherwise the respondent had no quarrel with the basis of the claimants' amended valuation under these headings.
              The second area of conflict was the extent of reinstatement necessitated by the resumption.  While some items of reinstatement claimed as being necessitated by the resumption were seen in the determination to be excessive, so too was the respondent's assessment seen to be inadequate.
              The remaining matter of significance was the differing perceptions of the effect of the resumption scheme on future Lang Park crowd attendances.  It is relevant that a matter of importance, in the opinion of the claimant's expert traffic engineer - the final roadworks design - was not available even at the date of hearing.  In fact the respondent's verbal engineering evidence indicated the strong possibility of provision for pedestrian facilities not included in the report written specifically for the hearing.
              I am of the opinion that it was reasonable for the claimant, having sought and accepted expert advice as to the potential extent of damage, in an uncertain situation, to have the matter of compensation decided by the Court.  This resulted in a determination considerably in excess of the amount which would have been received had the matter not been brought to the Court.
   Being guided by the findings of the Land Appeal Court in the matter of an appeal by the Townsville City Council against the failure of the Land Court to award costs - (1979) 6 QLCR 271 - in exercising my discretion in this matter I make no order as to costs.

Member of the Land Court.