Mreef Project Company v Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2007] QLC 30

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Mreef Project Company v Department of Natural Resources and Water  [2007] QLC 0030
PARTIES:	Mreef Project Company No. 15 Pty Ltd (appellant)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (respondent)
FILE NO:	AV2005/1853
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Application for Costs
DELIVERED ON:	20 April 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	Mr PA Smith
ORDER:	No order as to costs
CATCHWORDS:	Appellant successful on appeal - costs - factors to be taken into account
APPEARANCES:	Mr MD Ambrose of Counsel for the appellant Mr  LC Ling for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Clarke & Kann for the appellant Crown Solicitor, Crown Law, for the respondent.

Background

1. On 8 March 2007 I delivered my reasons for decision with respect to the appellant's appeal against the annual valuation of certain property under the Valuation of Land Act 1944.  The appellant's appeal was allowed.

Submissions

1. The appellant has subsequently sought an order for costs.  The appellant's submissions are limited to the point that the appellant has been completely successful in its action and, following normal principles, is entitled to have its costs paid by the respondent.

2. After stating the general legislative provisions, the respondent has referred to the decision of Bowden v Valuer-General[1]where the Land Appeal Court stated:

   "… in dealing with questions of costs, that it is an important consideration that there be ease of access to the Land Court and Land Appeal Court … Easy access to the Land Court to air grievances and have valuations reviewed is, … most desirable in revenue cases, and such access should be available without fear of costs being awarded to either party except in special cases."

   [1] 1980 7 QLCR 138 at 146

3. Quoting again from Bowden[2], the respondent has also submitted that:

   "The facts entitling an owner to the concession may often be not obvious on inspection.  They may be to a substantial (perhaps exclusive) extent, within the knowledge only of the owner."

   [2]     At 148

4. The respondent has then referred to a number of specific elements of the decision in this matter[3] to establish that this is not an appropriate case for an award of costs.  In particular, the respondent points to the fact that the property transfer information document for the appellant did not identify the subject land as being used for "farming"; significant information in support of the appellant's contention only became clearly known to the respondent at the hearing of the matter; and noting that at paragraph [69] of my decision of 8 March 2007 I noted the "highly unusual farming operations being conducted".

   [3] See [2006] QLC 13

5. The respondent also refers to the important issue as to the percentage of the land currently subject to the plantation.  The respondent therefore contends that there is no sufficient cause why the Land Court should depart from the usual process of each party bearing their own costs in this particular matter.

Decision

1. I agree with all the contentions of the respondent. Section 34(1) of the Land Court Act 2000 states that:

   "(1)Subject to the provisions of this or another Act to the contrary, the Land Court may order costs for a proceeding in the court as it considers appropriate."

2. Further, the Valuation of Land Act 1944 provides in s.66 that the Land Court may make such order as it deems fit with respect to the payment of costs, subject to s.70.  Section 70 is in the following terms:

"Costs of appeal against valuation

(1)Where the value of land as finally determined upon an appeal against the valuation is the value stated by the owner in the owner’s notice of appeal against the valuation, or is nearer to that value than to the valuation appealed against, costs shall not be awarded against the owner.

(2) Otherwise costs shall not be awarded against the chief executive."

1. Given the submissions of the respondent above and the relevant legislative provisions, in my view this is not an appropriate case where there should be an award of costs against the respondent.  Accordingly, I make no order as to costs.

PA SMITH

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT