Conias v Brisbane City Council [1992] QLC 8

LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 28th February, 1992. Re: Claim for Compensation. A91-7 M, S and A Conias v. Brisbane City Council DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR COSTS Judgment determining compensation in this matter was handed down on 21st February, 1992 and at the request of Mr SM Ure, Counsel for the respondent, the matter was stood over to allow him to obtain instructions on the question of costs. The matter came before me again today and Mr Ure asked that the Court make an order that the claimant pay the respondent's costs. It is his submission that the substantial difference between the amount of the claim and the amount of the valuation of the respondent were so apart made it reasonable to have the matter determined by the Court. He makes reference to a judgment of mine in EG Baillie v. The Commissioner for Railways (1986/87) 11 Q.L.C.R. 95 where at p 118 I made comment on my view of the proper approach in dealing with applications for an order for costs in these matters. Mr RS Jones, Counsel for the claimant, recounts some of the early history of this matter when an opinion was expressed by a valuer on behalf of the respondent in a conference with the owner and his valuer on the possible value of the land taken. Mr Jones says that no offer based on that opinion was ever made. It is his submission that in the circumstances of the case and the complexity of the valuation no order for costs should be made. [1992] QLC 8 -- 1 of 2 -- - Page 2 - The power of the Court to award costs is contained in Section 27 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. In this case, putting aside the claims for disturbance, the respondent has been wholly successful. I have accepted the method of valuation used by its valuer Mr PL Hillas. This was a case of accepting one valuation approach or another and I was required to determine the matter on the valuation approaches advanced in the Court and not by some other method. I have accepted the valuation approach of Mr Hillas and rejected the approach made by Mr JR Porter the valuer for the claimant. When the claim was so substantial and the approach so different it would have been helpful if Mr Porter had made reference to decided cases which might lend support to his valuation approach. In all the circumstances having considered the submissions I can find no sound basis to exercise my discretion and decline to make an order for costs. I find that costs should follow the event. Accordingly it is ordered in the exercise of the Court's discretionary powers that the claimant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to this action. The amount of such costs shall be ascertained and fixed by the Taxing Officer at the Supreme Court of Brisbane according to the scale of costs prescribed by law for the time being in respect of proceedings in the Supreme Court and in accordance with the provisions of Section 41(9) of the Land Act 1962. (Sgd. DJ Barry) President of the Land Court. -- 2 of 2 --