The case of Amos v Brisbane City Council [No 2] [2024] QCA 116 concerned an application to the Queensland Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) by a landowner seeking to restrain the Brisbane City Council (Council) from recovering unpaid rates and charges the subject of an order made by the Court of Appeal on 20 February 2018 (Order) or a permanent stay in respect of that Order. The Council made a cross-application seeking that any amount to be assessed in a costs order favouring the landowner be offset against any judgment sum awarded by the Court of Appeal.

The Order relevantly entered judgment for the Council "…in accordance with the minutes of judgment produced by the parties to the Registrar" (at [2]).

The Court of Appeal found that both parties failed to comply with the Order and the obligation under rule 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) to proceed in an expeditious way, because neither party produced the minutes of judgment for the judgment sum the subject of the Order to be perfected (at [12]). Accordingly, the Court held that there was no injustice in now perfecting the Order (at [15]).

The Court of Appeal held as follows:

• The landowner's application is refused (at [16]).

• The delay and non-compliance by both parties means that the interests of justice and fairness require the judgment to be entered to be the judgment that would have been entered if the parties had complied with the Order and their obligations under the UCPR within three months of the date of the Order (at [22]).

• The Council is entitled to a payment for rates and charges and interest on the unpaid rates and charges from 31 March 2012 to 20 May 2018 in the total amount of $518,726.58, less $54,322.30 being an offset of costs in favour of the landowner (see [24] to [26]).

• The interests of justice favour an award of interest from 21 May 2018 to 14 June 2024 in the amount of $210,711.14 on the amount of $464,404.28, because the Council has been deprived of that amount despite the landowner being aware of the landowner's obligation to pay the unpaid rates and charges and interest (at [27]).

• There be no order as to costs (at [28]).

The landowner owned seven parcels of land in respect of which the Council levied various rates and charges between 30 April 1999 and 9 January 2012.

The Council commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland (Supreme Court) in 2009 to recover the unpaid rates and charges. The Supreme Court relevantly held in the case of Brisbane City Council v Amos [2016] QSC 131; (2016) 216 LGERA 312 that the Council's claim was not statute barred because the 12-year limitation period in section 26(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (Limitations Act) applied.

On appeal by the landowner, the primary judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Amos v Brisbane City Council [2018] QCA 11; (2017) 230 LGERA 51 relevantly overturned the Supreme Court's finding on the basis that the six-year limitation period in section 10(1) of the Limitations Act applied and made the Order (2018 Judgment). The Court of Appeal's decision was the subject of our September 2018 article.

The Council appealed the findings in the 2018 Judgment relating to the limitation period to the High Court of Australia (High Court). The High Court in the case of Brisbane City Council v Amos [2019] HCA 27 granted special leave and upheld the decision in the 2018 Judgment. Significantly and importantly, the High Court held at [35] and at [46] that section 10(1) and section 26(1) of the Limitations Act can apply concurrently and in that situation the defendant can choose to invoke the most advantageous limitation period. The High Court's decision was the subject of our October 2019 article.

The Order was in effect for over five years before the parties sought to agree on the terms of the minutes of the 2018 Judgment.

The Council's reasons for delay were that the parties agreed to wait 21 days after the High Court's judgment to perfect the Order, the Council was dealing with the recovery of rates and charges associated with COVID-19 and flood emergencies from early 2020 until 2022, and the Council's cost assessment process was not finalised until 2023 (see [8] to [10]).

The landowner argued that the Council's delay was unsatisfactory and that the Council had the primary obligation to take steps to comply with the Order (at [11]).

The Court of Appeal held that the obligations under the UCPR fell on both of the parties, the Council's explanation for the delay did not absolve the Council of its obligations under the UCPR, and that the landowner at any time could have taken steps to comply with the Order in the absence of the Council doing so including by bringing the matter back before the Court of Appeal to address the non-compliance (see [12] to [14]).

The Court of Appeal held that no injustice would be served in perfecting the Order five years later, and that the judgment to be entered ought to be the judgment that would have been entered if the parties complied with the Order within three months of its date (see [22] and [22]).

The Court of Appeal ordered that the landowner pay the Council unpaid rates and charges, as well as interest, in a total amount of $464,404.28 (at [29]). The total amount included a reduction of $54,322.30 being an offset of costs in favour of the landowner (at [25]).

After a lengthy litigation history, the landowner was liable to pay unpaid rates and charges and interest on those unpaid amounts in a total amount of $464,404.28.