Chiu & Ors v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2026] QLC 9

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Chiu & Ors v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2026] QLC 9 PARTIES: Miguel Chiu and Li Jing Kou (applicants) and All Sun Investment and Finance Pty Ltd ATF All Sun Properties ABN 38 117 218 201 (applicant) v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads (respondent) FILE NO: AQL140-26 PROCEEDING: Application to strike out DELIVERED ON: Orders delivered ex tempore 5 June 2026 Reasons delivered 19 June 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: 5 June 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane PRESIDENT: PG Stilgoe OAM ORDERS: 1. Miguel Chiu and Li Jing Kou are substituted as the Applicants in this proceeding in place of All Sun Investment and Finance Pty Ltd ATF All Sun Properties. 2. Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads is substituted as the Respondent in this proceeding in place of Andrew Wheeler, Department of Transport and Main Roads. 3. It is declared that the Originating Application filed on 13 May 2026 has not, for want of jurisdiction, been properly started. -- 1 of 4 -- 2 4. The Originating Application is set aside. 5. There will be no order as to costs. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS – SETTING ASIDE ORIGINATING PROCESS OR SERVICE THEREOF – where the applicants brough an application of payment of cost in relation to an early acquisition of land – where the respondent brought an application to strike out the originating application for want of jurisdiction – where payment of reasonable fees would be conditional upon an agreement being reached – where no land has been taken APPEARANCES: M Chiu and LJ Kou, the applicants (self-represented) MM Pollard (solicitor), Clayton Utz, for the respondent [1] Because Mr Chiu signed the Originating Application and ticked the company box, the Registry put the file name under the company name when in fact Mr Chiu and Ms Kou are the registered owners. Then the first order I should make is that the applicants’ names be changed to Miguel Chiu and Li Jing Kou. [2] The second thing about names is that Mr Chiu has named Mr Wheeler, but the correct respondent should be the Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads. Again, I think that's a registry error so we will correct that by making the respondent the Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads. [3] Mr Chiu and Ms Kou have brought an application for payment of their costs of negotiating with the Department of Transport and Main Roads in relation to an early acquisition of land. The amount that they seek is in the order of $48,000. The Department has brought an application to strikeout the originating application on the basis that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by Mr Chiu and Ms Kou. [4] Mr Chiu, on behalf of both applicants, has said that the basis of the ability of the Court to grant the relief sought is twofold. [5] Firstly, that there was an agreement between the parties that the Department would pay the reasonable costs of the applicants in negotiating this early acquisition, the cost being around about $7,000 for lawyers and $7,000 for valuers. Mr Chiu says that the -- 2 of 4 -- 3 increase to $48,000 was precipitated by the Department’s breach of section 5 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 and the agreement that Mr Chiu was operating under, which was that there would be a 30-metre take. [6] The Court documents do not reflect Mr Chiu’s understanding of the agreement. The documents filed in court show that the negotiations were always for the whole of the land and that the payment of reasonable fees would be conditional upon an agreement being reached. There is a letter from the Department which signals that if the costs were going to exceed the allowances indicated, that the applicants had to give prior notice of that happening. [7] Section 20(5) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 does not apply because those costs are only payable when there is a taking of the land, and there has not yet been a taking of the land. I understand Mr Chiu’s frustration, but as I have previously pointed out, the Court can only order something to be paid if there is a legislative or legal basis for it and, in this case, there is none. That is not to say that in the fullness of time when there is a notice to take or there is an agreement, some of those costs might be recoverable. [8] I note the Department’s comments about the reasonableness of those comments and of those costs. That is not something on which I am going to comment because I have no ability to nor any jurisdiction, but that is something that both parties need to think about going forward. [9] As to costs, I cannot see any advance notice to Mr Chiu that is what you were likely to do if he proceeded with this application. While the Department is technically entitled to costs, I think that it would be rubbing salt into the wounds at this point. And I just note to Mr Chiu that every cost that the Department spends on negotiating reduces the pool of money that is available to the compensation prospect for you. That is just the way life works. But in this case, I am not going to order any costs of the application or of the proceeding. The Department is technically entitled to costs, and I am declining to award it simply on the basis that there is a fairness element which might slide it in your favour. Orders 1. Miguel Chiu and Li Jing Kou are substituted as the Applicant in this proceeding in place of All Sun Investment and Finance Pty Ltd ATF All Sun Properties & Ors. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 2. Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads is substituted as the Respondent in this proceeding in place of Andrew Wheeler, Department of Transport and Main Roads. 3. It is declared that the Originating Application filed on 13 May 2026 has not, for want of jurisdiction, been properly started. 4. The Originating Application is set aside. 5. There will be no order as to costs. -- 4 of 4 --