Cost Pty Ltd v Valuer-General; Allen v Valuer-General (No 2) [2026] QLAC 9

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Cost Pty Ltd v Valuer-General; Allen v Valuer-General (No 2) [2026] QLAC 9 PARTIES: Cost Pty Ltd (appellant) v Valuer-General (respondent) FILE NOs: LAC No 006-25 LAC No 007-25 LAC No 009-25 Land Court No LVA531-23 Land Court No LVA532-23 Land Court No LVA533-23 PARTIES: Reece Justin Allen (appellant) v Valuer-General (respondent) FILE NOs: LAC No 008-25 Land Court No LVA539-23 PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland - Costs ORIGINATING COURT: Land Court of Queensland DELIVERED ON: 5 August 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane (on the papers) HEARD ON: Submissions closed 8 May 2026 HEARD AT: Rockhampton (on the papers) THE COURT: Crow J JR McNamara, Member of the Land Court ND Loos, Member of the Land Court ORDER: 1. No order as to costs. -- 1 of 4 -- 2 CATCHWORDS: REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – COSTS – where the Land Appeal Court did not allow the appeal – where parties generally bear their own costs – where the Court has discretion to award costs under s 171 Land Valuation Act 2010 – where the Court found costs of any aspect of an appeal under the Land Valuation Act 2010 are governed by s 171 – whether the appellant failed to comply with procedural requirements Land Court Act 2000, s 57A Land Valuation Act 2010, s 171 APPEARANCES: Not applicable THE COURT: [1] On 24 April 2026, this Court dismissed appeals from orders of the Land Court. [2] The Land Court had upheld the Valuer-General’s decision on the unimproved value of four parcels of industrial land. [3] The parties now seek orders about the costs of the appeals in this Court. [4] The Valuer-General says that the appellants should pay 40% of its costs of an incidental to the appeals. [5] The appellants say that there should be no order as to costs. [6] Section 57A of the Land Court Act 2000 (LCA) provides: 57A Costs (1) The Land Appeal Court may order costs for an appeal to the court as it considers appropriate. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Land Appeal Court may order costs for the proceeding in which the decision appealed against was made, whether or not the court or tribunal that made the decision made, or had power to make, an order for costs for the proceeding. (3) If the Land Appeal Court does not make an order under subsection (1), each party to the appeal must bear the party’s own costs for the appeal. (4) This section is subject to the provisions of this Act or another Act to the contrary. [7] The parties each identify that s 171 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (LVA) is “another Act to the contrary”. That section provides: -- 2 of 4 -- 3 171 Costs (1) Each party to a valuation appeal must bear the party’s own costs of the appeal. (2) However, the Land Court may make a costs order if it considers any of the following circumstances applies— (a) all or part of the appeal was frivolous or vexatious; (b) a party has not been given reasonable notice of intention to apply for an adjournment; The Court is reluctant to depart from the rule that costs follow the event. (c) an applicant for an adjournment incurred costs because of the other party’s conduct; (d) a party incurred costs because the other party did not comply with the court’s procedural requirements; (e) without limiting paragraph (c), a party incurred costs because the other party introduced, or sought to introduce, new material; (f) a party did not properly discharge the party’s responsibilities for the appeal. [8] Section 172(3) of the LVA states that s 171 applies to Land Appeal Court proceedings as if a reference to “Land Court” was a reference to the “Land Appeal Court”. [9] This Court maintains its discretion to order costs if one of the circumstances in s 171(2) is satisfied. [10] The Valuer-General relies only on s 171(2)(d) to justify a costs order. The Valuer- General submits that: (a) grounds 1, 3 and 5 of the appeal arose out of the appellant’s failure to comply with the Land Court’s procedural requirements with respect to expert evidence; (b) Land Court Practice Direction 6 of 2020 (‘Expert Evidence in the Land Court’) states at [4] that the “Court expects experts to be independent, impartial…”; and (c) Mr Sheehan’s failure to act independently or impartially was a substantial focus of the appeal and required 40% of the time involved in the preparation and conduct of the appeals. [11] The Valuer-General focuses on the procedural requirements of the Court below – not the procedural steps in this Court. In these appeals, the parties complied with the procedural directions made by this Court, save that the appellants were one day late in filing a list of authorities. [12] The appellants’ written submissions largely focus on the possibility that the Valuer- General would rely on s 171(2)(a). It is not necessary to set out the details of the rebuttal of an argument not advanced. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [13] About s 171(2)(d), the appellants say: (a) it has no application because the proceedings were conducted in accordance with procedural requirements; and (b) that the Land Court’s preference of one expert’s evidence over another is incidental to the judicial process – that is, not procedural. [14] The Valuer-General cites no authority about s 171(2)(d) of the LVA applying to a situation such as this. The provision and other provisions like it are more usually applied where a party has missed a Court ordered deadline or failed to comply with case management orders.1 There was no meaningful non-compliance with procedural directions in these appeals. [15] The appeals were not particularly meritorious. It would be fair that at least some costs should follow the event. [16] That said, in our view s 171(2) of the LVA is not engaged in these appeals. As a result, s 171(1) – which states that each party to a valuation appeal must bear the party’s own costs of the appeal – is not displaced. [17] We conclude that each party ought to bear their own costs of these appeals. Order 1. No order as to costs. 1 For example, section 60(1)(f) of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016. -- 4 of 4 --