Williams v Department of Environment and Resource Management (No 2)

Case [2015] QLAC 1

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Williams v Department of Environment & Resource Management  (No 2) [2015] QLAC 1
PARTIES: RICHARD FRED WILLIAMS and MARY OLIVE WILLIAMS
(appellants)
v.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
(respondent)
FILE NO:

Appeal No. LAC009-13
Land Court No. WAA022-07

DIVISION: Land Appeal Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING: Costs of appeal
ORIGINATING COURT: Land Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON: 20 February 2015
DELIVERED AT: Cairns
DATE OF HEARING: Written submissions 7 January 2015; 12 January 2015; 22 January 2015
THE COURT Henry J
CAC MacDonald, President of the Land Court  
MD Evans, Member of the Land Court
ORDER:

1.     The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the application to adduce further evidence to be assessed on the standard basis.

2.     The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal to this court to be assessed on the standard basis, excluding the costs in Order 1 and excluding any costs of the notice of appeal to this court.
CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – appellants successful on appeal to the Land Appeal Court against decision on costs – but where not all of the appellants’ arguments on costs succeeded – whether apportionment of costs is appropriate for issues on which the appellant failed – exercise of discretion – costs awarded on a standard basis except for the costs of an unsuccessful application to adduce further evidence and costs of the notice of appeal in circumstances where the notice did not contain a succinct statement of the appellants’ ground of appeal

PROCEDURE – COSTS – enforcement of costs orders made by the Land Appeal Court – s 7B of the Land Court Act 2000 not applicable to the Land Appeal Court

Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2013
Land Court Act 2000
Land Court Rules 2000
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999
Water Act 2000

Dennehy v Reasonable Endeavours Pty Ltd (2003) 130 FCR 494
Gallo v Chief Executive, Department of Environment & Resource Management(No 2) [2014] QLAC 11
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association Inc [1986] ATPR 40-478
Mio Art Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (No 3) (2013) 34 QLCR 222
Mudie v Gainriver Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] 2 Qd R 271.
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Pricom Pty Ltd v Sgarioto - unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, (No 12926/1990), 24 April 1995
Williams v Department of Environment and Resource Management [2014] QLAC 10

  1. Henry J:  I have read and agree with the reasons of Member Evans and the orders he proposes.

  1. MacDonald P:  I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Member Evans.  I agree generally with his reasons and conclusions as to the liability for costs and it is only necessary for me to add some brief comments on one issue, the enforcement of the costs order.

  1. The appellants have sought an order under s 34(3) of the Land Court Act 2000 (the Act), as applied to the…

Continue reading Williams v Department of Environment and Resource Management...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Williams v Department of Environment and Resource Management (No 2) [2015] QLAC 1
Case
[2015] QLAC 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Williams v Department of Environment and Resource Management (No 2), the primary dispute was centred on the apportionment of costs between the appellants and the respondent following an appeal to the Land Appeal Court. The appellants had succeeded in their appeal but did not prevail on all of their arguments relating to costs. The court was required to determine whether the costs should be apportioned in light of the partial success on the costs issues, and whether the statutory provisions governing costs orders in the Land Court Act 2000 applied to the Land Appeal Court.

The court addressed several legal issues, primarily focusing on the appropriate exercise of discretion in apportioning costs in cases where an appellant is partially successful. It also considered the applicability of section 7B of the Land Court Act 2000 to the Land Appeal Court, which pertains to the enforcement of costs orders. The court had to determine whether this section applied to the Land Appeal Court, given the differences in jurisdiction and procedural context between the Land Court and the Land Appeal Court.

In its reasoning, the court found that while the appellants were successful on the substantive appeal, they were not entirely successful on all cost-related arguments. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to apportion the costs, awarding the respondent's costs of an unsuccessful application to adduce further evidence on a standard basis. Additionally, the court ruled that section 7B of the Land Court Act 2000 did not apply to the Land Appeal Court, thereby affirming the independence of the Land Appeal Court in handling cost orders. The costs of the notice of appeal were also assessed separately, with the appellants bearing the costs of the notice of appeal to the Land Appeal Court in circumstances where the notice did not contain a succinct statement of their grounds of appeal.

The court's final orders were that the appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the application to adduce further evidence on the standard basis, and the respondent pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal to the Land Appeal Court, excluding the costs in the first order and any costs of the notice of appeal to the Land Appeal Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the application to adduce further evidence to be assessed on the standard basis.

2. The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal to this court to be assessed on the standard basis, excluding the costs in Order 1 and excluding any costs of the notice of appeal to this court.

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.