Landowner avoids costs, despite 'hopeless' claim - ITC Law

The risk of an adverse costs order is slight and should not deter landowners from pursuing just compensation.

That proposition is illustrated by a recent case, Inglis v State of Queensland (No 3) [2016] QLC 28

The State Government took some land in order to develop a correctional facility.  The valuation evidence was that the property was worth between $1,875,000.00 and $2,250,000.00.

The acquiring authority had already advanced $1,875,000.00.  Nevertheless, the dispossessed landowner pressed for $2.9 million in compensation on the unsubstantiated assertion that a chicken farm might pay a premium price if the property came onto the open market.  The Land Court ultimately assessed market value at the higher end of the valuation range.

The acquiring authority applied for costs arguing that it had been burdened by the landowner persisting with a hopeless claim that was not supported by the evidence.  Half the trial was wasted on a contention that was doomed to fail.

The Land Court thought that the landowner had simply failed to make out its case.  There was no flaw in its conceptual approach.  It had not pursued the claim vexatiously or dishonestly.  A landowner should not be deterred from presenting an arguable and well organised case, even one that ultimately proves unsuccessful.

Just compensation should not be eroded by an adverse costs order

The Court declined to order the landowner to pay the acquiring authority’s legal costs.  It might have ordered the acquiring authority to pay the landowner’s costs of bringing the proceedings but was prevented by the Queensland legislation.