South Road Upgrade

868 Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (15 October 2021). With regards to South Road upgrade land acquisition legal fees:

(a) Why is the government taking a position of determining that 'reasonable costs' under the Act are defined as costs compliant with the Supreme Court Scale – when that is not the definition in the Act?

(b) Why has this definition been adopted?

(c) On what basis has the government arrived at this definition of 'reasonable costs'?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing): I have been advised:

The Authority takes the position that reasonable legal costs that arise naturally, reasonably and directly from the acquisition and are incurred in seeking legal advice on a person's entitlement to compensation, are to be reimbursed in accordance with the Higher Courts Costs Scale (previously the Supreme Court Scale), as this position is consistent with the scheme and case law.

The Land Acquisition Act 1969 does not indicate that a claimant is to receive a complete indemnity for legal costs incurred. In fact, section 36 of the Act confers a discretion on the Court when determining costs that is expressly directed to matters that arise at the negotiation stage. The Court has held that a claimant will not generally be awarded legal costs on solicitor/client basis in a compulsory land acquisition matter. The existence of an indemnity in respect of legal costs would be inconsistent with the evident emphasis of the act upon negotiation.

Further, the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 includes a scale that has been determined by the court to specify the appropriate charge (as varied from time to time) for the provision of legal services.