Archibald & Piat-Niski v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

[2001] QLC 6

[2001] QLC 6

 

LAND COURT BRIBSANE 3 MAY 2001

Re:Appeal against Annual Valuation - Valuation of Land Act 1944 Property ID.:             1138891 Local Government:  BCC-Ithaca (AV00-660)

Jackayn and Robert K Archibald & Konrad K Piat-Niski v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

DECISION ON JURISDICTION

1. The issue for determination in this matter is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal lodged two days after the due date. Section 57 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 allows for "reasonable excuse" as a cause for such delay:

   57.(1) If a notice of appeal is filed in the Land Court registry after the time stated in s.55(2), the registrar of the court must notify the owner that the appeal may not be heard unless the owner satisfies the court that the owner has a reasonable excuse for filing the notice after the time stated.

Example of 'reasonable excuse' -

The notice of the chief executive's decision or the notice of appeal was lost or delayed in the ordinary course of post."

The question then is whether the explanation for the late lodgment advanced by the appellants falls within the term "reasonable excuse" as interpreted by the cases, particularly since the introduction of s.57 as amended in 2000.

1. The subject property is owned by Mr Piat-Niski (half share) and Mr and Mrs Archibald (quarter share each). Mr Piat-Niski gave evidence at the hearing that an appeal against the Chief Executive's decision was being considered by himself and Mr Archibald. Some time prior to the date for lodgment Mr Piat-Niski travelled to Suffolk Heads, just south of Byron Bay, to do some maintenance on a property he owned there. He states he was unable to be contacted by phone at this location due to the poor mobile phone reception. He admits he forgot to lodge the appeal prior to leaving for Suffolk Heads. Because Mr Archibald was only a quarter shareholder in the subject property, he was to check with Mr Piat-Niski before lodging the appeal, Mr Piat-Niski being the half shareholder.  When Mr Archibald was unable to contact

2

Mr Piat-Niski as the date for lodgment approached, he decided he should lodge the appeal regardless; however, when he did so he was out of time.

1. I have considered the evidence given by Mr Piat-Niski and also the submissions by Mr R Paterson, counsel for the Chief Executive. I have also reviewed the authorities on the term "reasonable excuse" or similar expressions. These are usefully collected in a recent decision of the Land Court in Anthony v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, 10 November 2000. In essence, the authorities establish that the excuse must be "substantial" and "what one is looking for is some cause which a reasonable man would regard as sufficient a cause, consistent with a reasonable standard of conduct, the kind of thing which one might have expected to delay the taking of action by a reasonable man". Mr Paterson refers to examples such as sudden illness, floods or fire, as the sorts of occurrences that would justify action not being taken.

2. Having considered the tests outlined in these authorities and the facts of those cases, I am unable to conclude that a reasonable excuse has been established in the circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, I find the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the subject appeal.

BR O'CONNOR JUDICIAL REGISTRAR OF THE LAND COURT