Western Downs Regional Council v Geldard - [2020] QLAC 1

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
PARTIES:

Western Downs Regional Council v Geldard [2020] QLAC 1

Western Downs Regional Council
(appellant)

v

Roger John Geldard
(respondent)

FILE NOs:

LAC003-19

Land Court No LGR077-18

DIVISION:

Land Appeal Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

13 March 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 February 2020

THE COURT:

Boddice J
WA Isdale, Member of the Land Court
PG Stilgoe OAM, Member of the Land Court

ORDERS:

1.          The appeal is allowed.

2.          The orders of the Land Court are set aside.

3.          The appeal to the Land Court is dismissed.

The Court will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – ERROR OF LAW – INTERPRETATION – REFERENCE TO CONTEXT – where the dispute at first instance was about which rating category applied to the land – where the Member found the activities of the landowner were determinative of use – where the Member found the subject land is used for grazing purposes and burdened by petroleum leases – where the Member decided the land was to be categorised for rating purposes as category 3/16 Rural – where the appellant appeals that decision on the grounds that the Land Court erred in focusing on the use of the land by the owner rather than the use of the land as a whole – whether the word ‘use’ included all use of the land – whether the Member erred in interpreting ‘use’ to be limited to activities carried out by the landowner – whether gas extraction carried out under a petroleum licence by an energy company can be considered by the local government authority in determining ‘use’ for rating purposes

REAL PROPERTY – RATES AND CHARGES – RATING OF LAND – CATEGORIES OF LAND – OTHER TYPES OF PROPERTY – where the appellant originally determined the correct category was category 4/31 Petroleum Other (>400 HA) – where the respondent contended the correct rating category was category 3/16 Rural – whether the decision of the Land Court should be set aside

APT Petroleum Pipelines Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council [2014] QLC, cited.
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, cited.
Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council [2019] QLC 17, cited.
Ipswich City Council v BWP Management Ltd [2019] QLAC 1, cited.
Moreton Bay Regional Council v White [2018] QLAC 4, applied.
Paton v Mackay Regional Council [2014] QSC 75, applied.

COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:

Mr RG Bain QC with Mr JP Hastie for the appellant
Mr RJ Douglas QC for the respondent

King & Company Solicitors for the appellant
Thynne & Macartney for the respondent

THE COURT: In 2017, the respondent purchased “Lower Heatherley”, a property of about 839 ha, located at Fairymeadow Road, Miles. The appellant is the local government authority, in that area.[1]
[1] Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council [2019] QLC 17, [1].
The land, was previously…

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 Downs Regional Council v Geldard 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: [2020] QLAC 1
Decision Date: 13 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Western Downs Regional Council brought an appeal against a decision of the Land Court in relation to the rating category applicable to a parcel of land owned by Geldard. The Council had originally classified the land as category 4/31 Petroleum Other (>400 HA), whereas the Land Court had found it to be category 3/16 Rural. The dispute arose due to the differing interpretations of what constituted the 'use' of the land in determining its rating category. The Land Court held that the activities of the landowner were determinative of the land's use and that the land was primarily used for grazing and burdened by petroleum leases. Geldard contested this, arguing that the use of the land should encompass all uses, including those under a petroleum licence by an energy company.

The central legal issue was whether the Land Court erred in its interpretation of the term 'use'. The Council argued that the court should have considered all uses of the land, not just those directly conducted by the landowner. Geldard contended that the court correctly limited its consideration to the activities performed by the landowner. The Court was required to determine if the Land Court's focus on the landowner's activities was consistent with the statutory framework and whether the interpretation of 'use' was constrained to the landowner's activities or if it should include uses by entities under a petroleum licence.

The Court found that the Land Court had erred in its interpretation of the term 'use' by limiting it to the activities of the landowner. The Court held that the term 'use' should encompass all uses of the land, including those conducted by entities under a petroleum licence. This broader interpretation aligns with the statutory purpose of determining the appropriate rating category based on the land's overall use. The Court concluded that the Land Court's decision should be set aside, and the correct rating category should be determined by considering all uses of the land. The appeal was allowed, the orders of the Land Court were set aside, and the appeal to the Land Court was dismissed. The Court will hear the parties regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The orders of the Land Court are set aside.

3. The appeal to the Land Court is dismissed.

The Court will hear the parties as to costs.

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: PARTIES:	Western Downs Regional Council v Geldard [2020] QLAC 1 Western Downs Regional Council (appellant)
v Roger John Geldard (respondent)
FILE NOs:	LAC003-19 Land Court No LGR077-18
DIVISION:	Land Appeal Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland
ORIGINATING COURT:	Land Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	13 March 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 February 2020
THE COURT:	Boddice J WA Isdale, Member of the Land Court PG Stilgoe OAM, Member of the Land Court
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The orders of the Land Court are set aside. 3. The appeal to the Land Court is dismissed. The Court will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – ERROR OF LAW – INTERPRETATION – REFERENCE TO CONTEXT – where the dispute at first instance was about which rating category applied to the land – where the Member found the activities of the landowner were determinative of use – where the Member found the subject land is used for grazing purposes and burdened by petroleum leases – where the Member decided the land was to be categorised for rating purposes as category 3/16 Rural – where the appellant appeals that decision on the grounds that the Land Court erred in focusing on the use of the land by the owner rather than the use of the land as a whole – whether the word ‘use’ included all use of the land – whether the Member erred in interpreting ‘use’ to be limited to activities carried out by the landowner – whether gas extraction carried out under a petroleum licence by an energy company can be considered by the local government authority in determining ‘use’ for rating purposes REAL PROPERTY – RATES AND CHARGES – RATING OF LAND – CATEGORIES OF LAND – OTHER TYPES OF PROPERTY – where the appellant originally determined the correct category was category 4/31 Petroleum Other (>400 HA) – where the respondent contended the correct rating category was category 3/16 Rural – whether the decision of the Land Court should be set aside APT Petroleum Pipelines Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council [2014] QLC, cited. Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, cited. Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council [2019] QLC 17, cited. Ipswich City Council v BWP Management Ltd [2019] QLAC 1, cited. Moreton Bay Regional Council v White [2018] QLAC 4, applied. Paton v Mackay Regional Council [2014] QSC 75, applied.
COUNSEL: SOLICITORS:	Mr RG Bain QC with Mr JP Hastie for the appellant Mr RJ Douglas QC for the respondent King & Company Solicitors for the appellant Thynne & Macartney for the respondent