WB Rural Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue
[2017] QSC 169
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
- WB Rural Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue[2017] QSC 169
- Add to List
WB Rural Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue[2017] QSC 169
WB Rural Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue[2017] QSC 169
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | WB Rural Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue [2017] QSC 169 |
PARTIES: | WB RURAL PTY LIMITED AS TRUSTEE FOR THE WHITSUNDAY TRUST ACN 067 848 499 (applicant/appellant) v COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | SC No 11701 of 2015 SC No 11810 of 2015 |
DIVISION: | Trial Division |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
DELIVERED ON: | 18 August 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers. Written submissions delivered: 14 July 2017, 28 July 2017 |
JUDGE: | Bond J |
ORDERS: | The orders of the Court are that:
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – where the applicant/appellant was unsuccessful in the primary proceeding – where the respondent seeks a costs order in her favour – where the intervenor does not seek a costs order in her favour – whether the costs to be ordered in favour of the respondent should be limited in a way that excludes costs occasioned by the intervention Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681 University of Wollongong v Metwally (1985) 1 NSWLR 722, cited WB Rural Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue [2017] QSC 141, related |
SOLICITORS: | Cooper Grace Ward for the applicant/appellant Crown Solicitor for the respondent Crown Solicitor for the intervener |
- [1]On 30 June 2017, I published reasons addressing an amended application in proceeding 11701 of 2015 and an appeal in proceeding 11810 of 2015: see WB Rural Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue [2017] QSC 141.
- [2]By proceeding 11701/15 WB Rural Pty Limited sought a declaration that s 69(1)(b) of the of the Taxation Administration Act 2001 (Qld) was beyond the legislative competence of the Queensland Parliament insofar as it purported to preclude the Supreme Court from reviewing an objection decision in respect of land tax unless the applicant first paid to the Commissioner of State Revenue the amounts the subject of the assessments to which the Commissioner’s decision related.
- [3]By proceeding 11810/15, WB Rural purported to appeal pursuant to s 69 from the Commissioner’s decisions in respect of objection decisions made for the financial years ended 30 June 2010 to and including 30 June 2014. WB Rural had paid the amount the subject of the assessment for the first of the financial years concerned, but had not done so for the remaining years. By an application filed 14 October 2016, the Commissioner had sought dismissal of so much of the appeal as was concerned with the years for which WB Rural had not paid.
- [4]The Commissioner opposed the relief sought by WB Rural in each proceeding. The Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervened in support of the Commissioner’s argument in respect of the constitutional issue raised by WB Rural.
- [5]WB Rural’s argument failed.
- [6]I ordered that:
- (a)the amended application in proceeding 11701/15 be dismissed; and
- (b)save insofar as it challenged the Commissioner’s decision concerning the appellant’s objection to the reassessment of land tax in respect of the financial year ending 30 June 2010, the appeal in proceeding 11810/15 be dismissed.
- (a)
- [7]I directed that short written submissions be exchanged on the question of the appropriate order as to costs which ought to be made, and that I would determine that question on the papers. I received helpful submissions from all three litigants.
- [8]In proceeding 11810/15, both WB Rural and the Commissioner accepted that the appropriate costs order was that WB Rural pay the Commissioner’s costs of the Commissioner’s application filed 14 October 2016 and so much of the proceeding as was dismissed by the order made on 30 June 2017, on the standard basis. That is the order which I will make.
- [9]In proceeding 11701/15, the Commissioner contended that WB Rural should pay the Commissioner’s costs on the standard basis. The Attorney-General did not seek any order for costs in her favour. It followed that there was no risk in this case of WB Rural bearing two sets of costs from two parties in essentially the same interest on the same issue. WB Rural, however, resisted the order sought by the Commissioner and contended that the costs to be ordered in favour of the Commissioner should be limited so as to exclude costs occasioned by the intervention of the Attorney-General.
- [10]WB Rural accepted that the intervention of the Attorney-General would not ordinarily result in a modification of the costs order in favour of the successful party, but contended that this case was unique because the State’s interests were already represented by the Commissioner, and the intervention simply meant that they were represented twice. WB Rural submitted that by intervening the Attorney-General inevitably increased the Commissioner's costs by advancing contentions that the Commissioner had the same interest in advancing. It said it should not bear the marginal or additional costs occasioned by the intervention.
- [11]In my view this argument fails at the threshold. I have already mentioned the significance of the fact that the Attorney-General did not seek any order for costs in her favour. Otherwise, I agree with the Commissioner and the Attorney-General that the intervention in this case did not materially increase the length or complexity of the proceeding. But more significantly, the intervention did not, as WB Rural contended, inevitably increase the Commissioner's costs by advancing contentions that the Commissioner had the same interest in advancing. The Commissioner’s costs were materially occasioned by the need to meet the argument advanced by WB Rural, not by anything the Attorney-General did.
- [12]The Commissioner correctly pointed out that where a party initiates proceedings alleging that a statute is invalid, or where during the course of private litigation a party raises an issue as to the constitutional validity of a statute and the federal or state Attorneys-General intervene, the usual rule that costs follow the event nonetheless applies: University of Wollongong v Metwally (1985) 1 NSWLR 722 at 727-728.
- [13]WB Rural must therefore demonstrate sufficient reason why the court should depart from the usual rule, pursuant to r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules that costs follow the event.
- [14]In my view, it has not done so.
- [15]I order as follows:
- (a)In proceeding 11810 of 2015, WB Rural should pay the Commissioner’s costs of the Commissioner’s application filed 14 October 2016 and so much of the proceeding as was dismissed by the order made on 30 June 2017, on the standard basis.
- (b)In proceeding 11701 of 2015, WB Rural should pay the Commissioner’s costs on the standard basis.
- (a)