Ruling sticks to standard costs rule despite possible public importance
Queensland’s Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal upon confirming that the appellant did not meet the requirement in s 69(1)(b) of the Taxation Administration Act 2001 (Qld), thus failing to enliven the right to appeal against an objection decision.
In Kim Investments GC Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2026] QSC 25, after the appeal’s filing, the respondent commissioner explained to the appellant that the appeal was incompetent since the appellant had not paid the whole tax and late payment interest.
The commissioner invited the appellant to discontinue the appeal. Disagreeing that the appeal was incompetent, the appellant proposed asking the court to determine separate questions under r 483 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). The commissioner agreed to that course.
On 23 January 2026, the court addressed whether the appellant had paid the whole tax and late payment interest payable under the assessment, as required by s 69(1)(b), when it appealed against the commissioner’s objection decision.
Upon receiving the favourable decision, the commissioner asked the court for final orders dismissing the appeal and awarding appeal costs on the standard basis.
The Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the appeal. The court ordered the appellant to pay the commissioner’s standard costs of and incidental to the appeal, including any reserved costs.
The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the outcome of the determination of the separate questions was not an “event” under r 681 of the UCPR. The court noted that:
The court ruled that this case did not involve rare and exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the general rule on costs.
The court acknowledged the lack of prior judicial consideration regarding the question of whether s 69(1)(b) of the Taxation Administration Act required the payment of interest accruing after the assessment date.
However, the court held that the circumstances did not warrant denying the commissioner the partial indemnity arising through the application of the general rule.
The court pointed out that much litigation involves some public interest element exceeding the parties’ interests. According to the court, in common law litigation, decisions usually apply to similar prospective cases, involve the proper construction of significant legislative provisions, or clarify the law by resolving conflicting lines of authority.
The court found the appellant’s pursuit of a private benefit relevant. The court noted that departing from the general rule on costs based on the litigation’s public importance typically occurred in cases where the unsuccessful party did not seek a private benefit from the litigation.
The court accepted that it should weigh the private benefit’s nature and extent against the litigation’s public importance. According to the court, the potential private benefit in this case significantly outweighed the public importance, which weighed heavily against deviating from the usual costs rule.
