Rouse Lawyers

- The Law Firm For Business Owners and Entrepreneurs -

Call us: (07) 3648 9900

  • Home
  • Expertise
    • Corporate & Commercial
    • Private Wealth & Tax
    • Franchising
    • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Employment Law
    • Estate Planning
    • Property Law
  • About
    • Our Team
  • Reviews
  • Articles
  • Careers
  • Legal Guide
  • Contact

Telstra takes stand against Queensland telco charges

Matthew Rouse

The rent that Queensland’s Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) now charges telecommunications carriers for land used for communications sites is significantly higher than rent charged to other Crown land users on comparable sites.

The Bligh government introduced the Land Regulation 2009 (Qld) (the Land Regulation), which commenced on 1 July 2010, prescribing higher prices for commercial carriers that lease Crown land for “transmission of telephonic television, radio or other electronic communication services”.

Telstra is the holder of about 488 leases over state land in Queensland for its fixed and mobile networks, and the new rates apply as the leases are renewed.

Telstra Corporation Ltd v State of Queensland [2013] FCA 1296

Telstra’s initial discussions with DERM regarding the method used to calculate rent on communications sites failed, and Telstra filed a claim against the State of Queensland in the Federal Court, which alleges that the Queensland laws discriminate against commercial carriers.

Telstra has for some time refused to pay rent at the rates prescribed under the Land Regulation, instead paying rent at a lower rate. The State’s cross claim is that it is owed rent and penalty interest by Telstra to the tune of more than $12.5 million.

In December 2013, Queensland made an interlocutory application to the Court seeking orders that Telstra continues to pay the current land access rates whilst the case continues to run. The Court rejected the State’s application, ruling that it could not keep collecting the increased rents while the validity of the legislation is being determined.

The outcome was that the interlocutory application filed by Queensland was dismissed, and Queensland was ordered to pay Telstra’s costs of the application.

Commonwealth Law v State Law

The Australian Constitution, (and in particular section 109) states that when a state law is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth law shall prevail, and the state act shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

The Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) (the Commonwealth Act) provides that where state law discriminates against carriers, that law has no effect to the extent to which it discriminates.

In the proceedings, Telstra pleads that the Land Regulation discriminates against it and other carriers because they are required to pay more rent than if they were not carriers. Telstra asserts that the provisions in the Land Regulation have no effect and are (and have been at all relevant times) invalid by operation of the provisions in the Commonwealth Act.

Telcos are challenging land access rents in multiple states, and it will be interesting to see whether the outcomes in these cases are consistent across the different jurisdictions.

March 3, 2014 Filed Under: Commercial Litigation

Enter your details below to contact a professional Commercial Litigation lawyer.

↓

We add new contacts to Rouse Lawyers database. We may send you information or service offerings we believe may be relevant to you. If you agree to being contacted by us in the future, send your enquiry. Naturally, you can unsubscribe any time.

Client Reviews

“Rouse Lawyers assisted our fast-growing commercial fit-out and building business for around 4 years. We have called upon the firm’s expertise in intellectual property, software development and contract negotiation matters.”

Jim HardyUrban Office

"We call upon Rouse Lawyers for their invaluable advice"

We have used Rouse Lawyers over the past 3 years, predominantly in our mergers and acquisitions activities. Matthew and his team understand the needs of larger family businesses, and their pragmatic and commercial approach to transactions is first class. From personal matters to large deals, we call upon Rouse Lawyers for their invaluable advice.

Tom FalkensteinTotal Records Management

"Engaged to implement our franchise system and structures for expansion"

“After aptly handling a previous long-term dispute of ours in such a competent manner, Rouse Lawyers were engaged to implement our franchise system and structures for expansion. The commercial advice and timely assistance provided by Matthew and Peter has been outstanding.”

Andrew LamontFederal Pest Control

PRIVACY POLICY DISCLAIMER TERMS

BRISBANE OFFICE

Ph: +61 7 3648 9900

Fx: +61 7 3648 9911

Level 2, 22 Wandoo St, Fortitude Valley, QLD 4006

17-Page Guide Reveals:

How To Protect Your Business and Your Assets While Allowing Your Business To Thrive

Written by Matthew Rouse, commercial lawyer and founder of Rouse Lawyers.

17-Page Guide Reveals:

How To Protect Your Business and Your Assets While Allowing Your Business To Thrive

Written by Matthew Rouse, commercial lawyer and founder of Rouse Lawyers.

Sign Up To Our Newsletter