Clark v Sunshine Coast Regional Council (No 2) [2026] QLAC 7

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Clark v Sunshine Coast Regional Council (No 2) [2026] QLAC 7 PARTIES: Gregory Scott Clark (appellant) v Sunshine Coast Regional Council (respondent) FILE NO: LAC001-26 Land Court No AQL430-24 PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland - Costs ORIGINATING COURT: Land Court of Queensland DELIVERED ON: 4 June 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: Written submissions on costs closed 13 May 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane (on the papers) THE COURT: Cooper J PG Stilgoe OAM, President of the Land Court ND Loos, Member of the Land Court ORDERS: 1. Mr Clark pay the Sunshine Coast Regional Council’s costs of the appeal on a standard basis. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – where the Land Appeal Court set aside the costs order of the proceeding below – where the Land Appeal Court otherwise dismissed the application – where the respondent seeks an order that the appellant pay its costs of the appeal – where the appellant says there should be no order as to costs – where the Court has unfettered discretion about costs – whether costs should follow the event – where costs were not addressed in the appellants written submissions – whether the appellant was an involuntary litigant – whether being an involuntary litigant has any bearing on costs orders – whether partial success in an appeal grounds a reduction in any order for costs -- 1 of 4 -- 2 Land Court Act 2000 s 57 Lonergan v Friese (No 2) [2020] QLAC 4, cited Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, cited THE COURT: [1] Mr Clark’s appeal against the amount of compensation payable for the resumption of his land was wholly unsuccessful. His appeal against the costs of the proceeding below was successful: this Court ordered that each party bear their own costs. [2] The parties now seek orders about the costs of the appeal. The Sunshine Coast Regional Council seeks an order that Mr Clark pay its costs of the appeal. Mr Clark says there should be no order as to costs. [3] Section 57 of the Land Court Act 2000 gives the Court an unfettered discretion about costs. The Court has, however, expressed a view that, generally speaking, costs follow the event.1 [4] Mr Clark submits there are three reasons why the Court should depart from that view: (a) his appeal was partially successful. (b) the Court’s decision about the costs below was influenced by the principle that an involuntary litigant should not have an award of compensation eroded by the costs of litigation. (c) because the Court below determined that the amount of compensation was less than the amount of the advance, Mr Clark had to repay $329,422.01 plus interest. [5] For the reasons that follow, costs should follow the event and Mr Clark should pay the Council’s costs of the appeal. 1 Lonergan v Friese (No 2) [2020] QLAC 4 at [6]. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 Partial success in an appeal [6] Mr Clark says that his success against the costs order is a discrete outcome which would (at least) ground a reduction in any order for costs in favour of the Council. [7] The Council points out that Mr Clark only raised the costs point on the day of the hearing before this Court. He did not address the point in his written submissions. The Council says that considerable time and effort was incurred in the litigation of the substantive grounds of appeal that were found to be without merit. [8] Mr Clark’s appeal against the costs order was not the primary motivation for the appeal. We are not persuaded that Mr Clark’s success in overturning the costs order is sufficient ground for departing from the general principle that costs should follow the event. The involuntary litigant [9] It is true that Mr Clark was, in a sense, an involuntary litigant in the proceeding below and this was central to this Court’s decision to overturn the costs order. [10] Mr Clark says the point of the principle is to mitigate the dispossessed owner’s uninvited loss in proceedings that contest the amount of that loss. He submits that the reasonableness of his decision to challenge the compensation “carries thorough to this appeal” and the principle of the involuntary litigant having an award eroded by costs is engaged afresh. [11] The Council says that the circumstances of this appeal are relevantly different from the proceedings at first instance because Mr Clark was not an involuntary litigant in the appeal; he wanted to take the matter further and he was wholly unsuccessful. [12] The Council also points out that the purpose of an order for costs is “not to punish the unsuccessful party… but to indemnify the successful party.”2 2 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 at [67] (McHugh J). -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [13] Mr Clark was not an involuntary litigant in the appeal. It was his choice to take the matter further and, in the appeal against quantum, he wholly failed. Mr Clark has to repay money to the Council [14] This submission is really an extension of the submission that an involuntary litigant should not have their award eroded by a costs order. Mr Clark submits that he is already disadvantaged by the decision below and that this is justification for his appeal and “is a form of offset against the litigation costs”. [15] This submission has no basis in law. Some unsuccessful litigants are required to repay money to the successful party. They are also required to pay interest because the successful party has been held out of those funds. Mr Clark was, inevitably, required to repay the Council. That does not justify any differential treatment as to the costs of the appeal. Orders 1. Mr Clark pay the Sunshine Coast Regional Council’s costs of the appeal on a standard basis. -- 4 of 4 --