Body Corporate for Ocean Plaza Apartments CTS 5879 v Valuer-General; Body Corporate for Points North CTS 4774 v Valuer-General [2024] QLC 22

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Body Corporate for Ocean Plaza Apartments CTS 5879 v Valuer-General; Body Corporate for Points North CTS 4774 v Valuer-General [2024] QLC 22 PARTIES: Body Corporate for Ocean Plaza Apartments Community Titles Scheme 5879 (appellant) v Valuer-General (respondent) FILE NO: LVA266-23 PARTIES: Body Corporate for Points North Community Titles Scheme 4774 (appellant) v Valuer-General (respondent) FILE NO: LVA267-23 DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: Hearing of a general application DELIVERED ON: 21 November 2024 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: 20 November 2024 HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER: ND Loos ORDERS: 1. The three day hearing set to commence on 3 December 2024 is vacated; 2. The matter is listed for review at 2:00pm on 3 December 2024; -- 1 of 5 -- 2 3. The costs of and incidental to the review on 20 November 2024 and the costs thrown away by the adjournment of the hearing, are reserved. CATCHWORDS: REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – where General Application was filed seeking orders to vacate existing trial dates – where there is no opposition to the General Application – whether in balancing the public interest in the efficient use of court resources and the interest of the parties the General Application ought to be granted Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 Land Court Rules 2022 Kenny v ASK Funding Ltd [2019] QCA 13, cited APPEARANCES: Mr D Quayle (instructed by Clayton Utz) for the respondents Mr T Ritchie (instructed by Mahoneys) for the appellants [1] The two Bodies Corporate apply for the hearing dates to be vacated. The hearing is set for 3, 4 and 5 December 2024. [2] The Valuer-General does not oppose the application. Background and chronology [3] The appeals are against valuations that took effect on 30 June 2022. The subject land comprises separate parcels at 66 and 80 Marine Parade, Coolangatta. [4] The appeals were filed on 13 September 2023. [5] Between 13 October 2023 and 31 May 2024, various procedural orders were made setting times for the preparation of expert evidence in valuation and quantity surveying. The parties sought extensions for that evidence to be finalised and filed. [6] The evidence was eventually filed. [7] On 3 September 2024, an order was made setting the appeals for hearing commencing on 3 December 2024. [8] On 30 October 2024, the Bodies Corporate filed a Notice of Change of Solicitor. -- 2 of 5 -- 3 [9] On 5 November 2024, at a pre-hearing review, counsel for the Bodies Corporate reported that the new solicitors had discovered that neither Body Corporate had passed a resolution authorising the litigation. That is a problem.1 Reference was made to authority indicating that it may be possible for an unauthorised proceeding to be ratified by a subsequent resolution of the Body Corporate.2 [10] The Court was told that Extraordinary General Meetings would be called to ratify the decision to start the proceeding. It was thought that the notice periods required to call such meetings would not leave much time between the meetings and the hearing commencing on 3 December 2024. The appeals were adjourned to 20 November 2024 for the parties to consider their positions. The application [11] The Bodies Corporate filed a General Application on 19 November 2024 seeking: “1. that the trial listed to commence on 3 December 2023 [sic] is vacated, 2. the matter be listed for review on 3 December 2023 [sic] and 3. the costs of an incidental to the review on 20 November 2024 are reserved.” [12] The General Application was supported by an affidavit of Mr Seccombe – the solicitor for the Bodies Corporate – filed on the same day. [13] Mr Seccombe’s evidence is that Extraordinary General Meetings have been set for 2 December 2024. He says that having reviewed the files, he considers “that a significant amount of work will need to be undertaken between and the first day of trial [sic]”. His affidavit gives an estimate of pre-hearing legal costs. It is a substantial sum. [14] Whether the litigation is authorised or not will be known before the start of the hearing. The difficulty is that that will only be one day before. The vacation of the hearing dates is sought to avoid the preparation for the trial proceeding “in a less than desirable state of uncertainty”. 1 See section 312 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and Oceana on Broadbeach Community Titles Scheme 24163 v Stephen Charles Searle [2003] QCA 238. 2 Banks v Body Corporate “Noosa on the Beach” Community Titles Scheme 6417 [2000] QCA 146 at [7]. -- 3 of 5 -- 4 Resolution [15] By the Land Court Rules 2022, section 4, the Court and the parties are under an obligation to facilitate the just and quick resolution of the issues in a proceeding. The Court is expressly required to avoid undue delay, expense and technicality in a proceeding. The parties are expressly required to proceed in an expeditious way. [16] In addition to the interests of the parties, there is a public interest in the efficient use of court resources. Consequently, the effect of delay in hearing one matter, on the availability of the court’s resources more generally, and the interests of other litigants waiting to be heard, are also relevant factors.3 [17] Having considered those matters in the circumstances of this application, the hearing dates ought to be vacated. To maintain the dates risks the parties spending substantial amounts of money preparing for a case that may not proceed. [18] It is a regrettable situation. There has been no evidence offered about how the litigation progressed so far without authorisation, or why the problem was not identified earlier. [19] While counsel for the Bodies Corporate referred to authorities about the jurisdiction of the Court and whether a later resolution can ratify an earlier decision to start a proceeding – the Court was not asked to decide those matters. The Respondent has not applied for the appeals to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If the resolutions do not pass at the EGMs, that may be the end of the appeals. If the resolutions do pass, the parties will have to make submissions about the appropriate way to progress the appeals.4 Orders [20] The Orders are: 1. The three day hearing set to commence on 3 December 2024 is vacated; 2. The matter is listed for review at 2:00pm on 3 December 2024; 3 Kenny v ASK Funding Ltd [2019] QCA 13 at [80]. 4 For example, whether an application for an extension of time to appeal is required. Or whether fresh appeals are filed with an application to treat the material already filed in these appeals as having been filed in the fresh appeals. Or some other approach indicated by the authorities. -- 4 of 5 -- 5 3. The costs of and incidental to the review on 20 November 2024 and the costs thrown away by the adjournment of the hearing, are reserved. -- 5 of 5 --