Property and Real Estate Gazette (2nd edition)

9 / 44

7
Property and Real Estate Gazette
noted there were good reasons for the Land Court
to doubt the methods used by the state’s valuer and
reasoned there was no way to assess the reliability of
the indexation used given the valuation report recorded
considerable variability in market movement.
State – Disturbance costs
The state contended the Land Court erred in the
award of disturbance costs to Inglis, with focus placed
upon the reasonableness of the costs incurred (costs
as compensation for legal and other professional
assistance incurred in claims). The state submitted
charges incurred by Inglis’ solicitor and counsel were
unreasonable, such as counsel settling ‘every day
correspondence’ and settling briefing instructions to
experts. Inglis submitted the complexity of the trial
warranted the disturbance costs awarded.
The Land Appeal Court held the Land Court
considered the evidence regarding the costs incurred
and concluded the costs claimed were necessarily and
properly incurred. The Land Appeal Court highlighted
the complexities of the claim and the fact that after the
claim had been filed, the state raised issues which
resulted in Inglis expending money to appropriately
respond.
Interest
The Land Court had allowed interest on compensation,
so far as it related to the value of the land, from the
date of the resumption and also in respect of the
disturbance award from the date of payment of the
fees which resulted in the award. As an advance
against compensation of $1,875,000 had been paid to
Inglis on 1 June 2012, the Land Court framed the order
so that interest was not payable on that amount from
that date.
The state appealed against the order for interest.
The state sought to argue that the Land Court had
erred in not holding that factors such as the delay
between the date the property was resumed and the
date the claim for compensation was filed by Inglis
(which was filed in the Land Court on 26 November
2012), the refusal of Inglis to provide for a valuation
for the purposes of negotiations constituted sufficient
grounds for limiting the interest award to a period of
one year from the date of the resumption.
The court noted that the power to award interest, under
s 28 of the Act is discretionary and can only succeed
if the party appealing the order establishes an error in
the exercise of the discretion.
After considering the state’s submissions, the court
observed that there was considerable complexity to the
claim, and that Inglis were not guilty of unreasonable
delay because they engaged experts for the purpose
of considering the claim, but did not ultimately rely
on those experts. The court concluded that the
evidence failed to establish that Inglis were guilty of
unreasonable delay in the prosecution of the claim.
On that basis, the court ultimately concluded that the
state failed to demonstrate that the Land Court erred in
relation to the award of interest.
Conclusion
Both appeals were dismissed.
This case illustrates the court’s reasoning in assessing
compensation in circumstances where a potential
purchaser may have expressed an interest in
purchasing the resumed land sometime prior to the
date of the resumption, and the difficulties which could
be associated in providing evidence of the value of the
land in those circumstances.
It also highlights the court’s reasoning in relation to
making an award for disturbance costs and Interest
under the Act, and the fact that conduct of the owner
of resumed land during the course of negotiations in
relation to the claim for compensation under the Act
may be particularly relevant in the assessment of
interest which may be payable to a land owner under
the Act.
1 Inglis & Ors v State of Queensland (No 2) [2015]
QLAC 3 [9].
2 Ibid [10].
3 Ibid [11].
4 Ibid [12].
5 Ibid [24].
6 Ibid [29].
7 Ibid [35].
8 These authorities included: Spencer v
Commonwealth of Australia (1907) 5 CLR 418, Raja
Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v The Revenue
Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam [1939] AC 302,
Phillipou v Housing Commission of Victoria (1969)
18 LGRA 254, Purden v Minister for Lands and
Works (1966) 19 The Valuer 729, Kenny & Good Pty
Ltd v MGiCA (1992) Ltd (1999) 199 CLR 413, Walker
Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore
Authority (2008) 233 CLR 259
9 Inglis & Ors v State of Queensland (No 2) [2015]
QLAC 3 [42].