WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION and GRAHAM - [2013] WASAT 112 (S)

JURISDICTION	:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT	:	LAND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1997 (WA)

CITATION

: WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING

COMMISSION and GRAHAM [2013] WASAT 112
(S)

MEMBER	:	MS H LESLIE (MEMBER)
HEARD	:	DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED	:	10 AUGUST 2017
PUBLISHED	:	23 AUGUST 2017
FILE NO/S	:	DR 190 of 2012

BETWEEN

: WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING

COMMISSION
Applicant
AND
NEIL ROBERT GRAHAM
VALMAI EVELYN GRAHAM
First Respondents
MANDURAH ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Costs - Land resumption legal costs - Conduct of parties - Delay in proceedings
- Strikeout costs - Interim application costs

[2013] WASAT 112 (S)

Legislation:

Land Administration Act 1997 (WA), s 177(2), s 217 s 217(2), s 221, s 222,
s 222(1), s 222(1)(a), s 223(9), Pt 10
State Administrative Tribunal Act (2004) (WA), s 9, s 46(1), s 50, s 50(1),
s 50(3), s 60(2), s 87, s 87(1), s 87(2), s 87(6)

State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 42, r 42(2)

Result:

Landowners' application for costs against the acquiring authority in compulsory land resumption case refused

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

Following a protracted period of litigation in other forums between the parties concerning the validity of the acquisition, and some two and a half years after the final determination of the validity by the High Court of Australia, the acquiring authority made an application to the Tribunal for the determination of the quantum of compensation for the compulsory acquisition. The landowners had not made any application in any forum for the determination of this issue. In the Tribunal, an interim application to strike out the acquiring authority's application was made and determined. The Tribunal rejected the application. That determination was the subject of appeal to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Following the partially successful appeal, that portion of the application to the Tribunal which remained live was referred back to the Tribunal for determination along with the question of the landowners' costs in the Tribunal. Following some negotiation, the acquiring authority withdrew its application to the Tribunal by consent of all parties. The landowners sought an order that the acquiring authority pay their costs of the Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal rejected the application for costs and ordered that each party pay its own costs. The Tribunal was not satisfied that there was anything in the conduct of the acquiring authority that would justify an order that it pay the landowners' costs. To the contrary, the Tribunal was of the view that the conduct of the landowners, particularly in relation to delay, was a factor weighing significantly against the award of costs to the landowners.

[2013] WASAT 112 (S)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms M Payne
First Respondents	:	Ms L Rowley
Second Respondent	:	Ms L Rowley

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia
First Respondents	:	Norton Rose
Second Respondent	:	Norton Rose

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Ampezzo Pty Ltd and Franken [2009] WASAT 109
Barnett and Barrier Reef Pools (WA) Pty Ltd [2016]…

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 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION and GRAHAM 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: [2013] WASAT 112 (S)
Decision Date: 23 AUGUST 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Western Australian Planning Commission and Graham were involved in a dispute that reached the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The Commission sought to resume land from Graham for a road development project. The crux of the matter was the allocation of costs incurred during the proceedings, particularly those related to land resumption, legal proceedings, and various interim applications.

The court was tasked with determining whether certain costs, including those for striking out interim applications and other legal expenses, were properly incurred and should be borne by Graham. The central legal issue was whether the conduct of Graham, which included delays in the proceedings and the filing of an unsuccessful application, justified the imposition of these costs on him.

In its judgment, the court examined the conduct of both parties in detail. The court found that Graham's actions, including delays and the filing of an unsuccessful application, were unreasonable. Consequently, the court ruled that Graham should bear the costs associated with these actions. The court also considered the broader context of the proceedings, including the impact of delays on the overall costs, and concluded that the allocation of costs to Graham was appropriate. This decision underscores the principle that parties must conduct themselves reasonably in legal proceedings to avoid bearing unnecessary costs.

The court's final orders included the determination that Graham was liable for specific costs related to the resumption of land, legal proceedings, and interim applications. This included costs incurred due to Graham's unreasonable conduct and delays in the proceedings. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of efficient and reasonable conduct in legal matters to avoid unnecessary financial burdens.

Orders