Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No 2)
[2025] QLAC 4
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No 2)[2025] QLAC 4
- Add to List
Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No 2)[2025] QLAC 4
Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No 2)[2025] QLAC 4
LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council (No 2) [2025] QLAC 4 |
PARTIES: | Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 053 174 271 (appellant) v Moreton Bay Regional Council (respondent) |
FILE NOs: | LAC No 001-25 Land Court No AQL037-23 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Land Court of Queensland |
DELIVERED ON: | 16 September 2025 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARD ON: | Submissions closed 9 September 2025 |
HEARD AT: | On the papers |
THE COURT: | Cooper J PG Stilgoe OAM, President of the Land Court ND Loos, Member of the Land Court |
ORDER: | No order as to costs. |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – where appeal to Land Appeal Court was allowed and original decision overturned – where each party enjoyed a measure of success on appeal – whether discretion as to costs ought to be exercised to award costs to the appellant – whether mixed success of each party means no costs order should be made Land Court Act 2000 (Qld) s 57A Access Training Group Ltd v Jane [2024] NSWCA 204, cited Bentleys (Sunshine Coast) Pty Ltd v Thomson [2019] QCA 104, cited Brisbane City Child Care Pty Ltd v Dalton [2017] QSC 187, cited Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru [No 2] (2015) 90 ALJR 270, cited Ipswich City Council v BWP Management Limited & Anor (No 2) (2019) 40 QLCR 214, followed Toowoomba Regional Council v Wagner Investments Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QCA 225, cited Villan v The Body Corporate for the Winston (Cairns) Community Titles Scheme 37263 [No 2] [2024] QCA 54, cited |
APPEARANCES: | RJ Anderson KC with WDJ Macintosh (instructed by HWL Ebsworth) for the appellant DR Gore KC with DA Quayle (instructed by Moreton Bay Regional Council) for the respondent |
THE COURT:
- [1]On 19 August, this Court allowed an appeal on a preliminary question posed by Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd about its entitlements under discontinued notices to resume.[1]
- [2]In the appeal, Genamson submitted that s 16(1A) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld) entitled it to claim disturbance costs similar to that available under s 20(5). The Council submitted that Genamson’s entitlements were limited to legal costs and expenses.
- [3]This Court held that Genamson was not entitled to disturbance costs but might be entitled to something more than legal costs and expenses. The appeal was allowed.
- [4]Genamson now seeks its costs of that appeal and also the hearing below.
- [5]
- [6]Genamson submits that the application of this principle, alone, justifies an order for costs in its favour.
- [7]The Council submits that the Court should have regard not only to the appeal being allowed, but also the reasons for judgment and the terms on which the case has been remitted to the Land Court for further determination. By examining the decision in this way, the Council submits that its success was greater than that enjoyed by Genamson.
- [8]The Council further submits that analysis does not offend the principle that a Court should be cautious about undertaking an issue by issue analysis of a case unless there is a particular issue or group of issues that is clearly dominant or separable from the others.[4]
- [9]Although Genamson was technically successful on appeal in that the original decision was overturned, each party enjoyed a measure of success. The outcome could be characterised as having been contestable.[5]
- [10]The mixed success of each party is a compelling reason for concluding that the discretion as to costs ought to be exercised on the basis that neither party be ordered to pay the costs of the other.
Order:
- [11]No order as to costs.
Footnotes
[1]Genamson Holdings Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2025] QLAC 2.
[2]Section 57A Land Court Act 2000 (Qld).
[3]Ipswich City Council v BWP Management Limited & Anor (No 2) (2019) 40 QLCR 214 at [6].
[4]Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru [No 2] (2015) 90 ALJR 270, 271 at [5]; Villan v The Body Corporate for the Winston (Cairns) Community Titles Scheme 37263 [No 2] [2024] QCA 54 at [4]; Bentleys (Sunshine Coast) Pty Ltd v Thomson [2019] QCA 104 at [6]; Brisbane City Child Care Pty Ltd v Dalton [2017] QSC 187 at [16]; Access Training Group Ltd v Jane [2024] NSWCA 204 at [188].
[5]Toowoomba Regional Council v Wagner Investments Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] QCA 225 at [3].