Ardoch P/L v Valuer-General - [2006] SASC 26

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Land and Valuation Division: Application)
ARDOCH P/L v VALUER-GENERAL
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Debelle
2 February 2006
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPEAL
Appeal instituted eight months out of time - whether extension of time should be granted - no prejudice suffered by respondent - relevant principles - valuation necessary - extension of time granted.
Valuation of Land Act 1971 s 24, s 25B, s 25C; Land and Valuation Rules 1984 r 8, r 84.1, referred to.
Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 196; Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; Gikas v Police (1999) 202 LSJS 301; Hill v Parke Davis & Co Ltd (1986) 41 SASR 349; Hughes v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co of Australasia Ltd [1978] VR 257; Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516; McPherson v Groeneveld (unreported, Supreme Court of SA, 21 February 1997, no S6052); R v Secretary for Home Department; Ex parte Mehta [1971] 1 WLR 1087, considered.

ARDOCH P/L v VALUER-GENERAL
[2006] SASC 26
Land and Valuation Divison

DEBELLE J. This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal to the Land and Valuation Court against a decision of the Valuer‑General dismissing an objection to an assessed valuation of land. There has been a substantial delay in lodging the appeal. It was well outside the prescribed time. On 5 October 2005 I granted an extension of time for reasons to be published. These are the reasons for that decision.
On or about 5 November 2003 the appellant received a notice of assessment for land tax. It lodged an objection within time on 2 December 2003. The Valuer-General disallowed the objection.
The appellant then had two alternatives available to it. First, it could appeal to the Land and Valuation Court against the decision of the Valuer-General pursuant to s 25C of the Valuation of Land Act 1971 (“the Act”). Alternatively, it could within 21 days of receiving notice of the Valuer‑General’s decision disallowing its objection apply for a review of the valuation pursuant to s 25B of the Act which carried with it the right of the appellant, if dissatisfied with the review, to appeal to the Land and Valuation Court pursuant to s 25C. The appellant initially chose to apply for a review of the valuation.
The Valuer-General’s notice to the appellant disallowing the objection was dated 17 December 2003. The appellant did not apply for a review of the valuation until 19 January 2004. The appellant, through its solicitors, states that the notice from the Valuer‑General was not received by it until 5 January 2004. There is no explanation for this delay in receiving the letter. In the ordinary course of post the letter would have been received within at least two to three days after 17 December. As the appellant did not apply…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ardoch P/L v Valuer-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] SASC 26
Decision Date: 2 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ardoch P/L, appealed a decision of the District Court of South Australia in a valuation dispute. The respondent, the Valuer-General, opposed the appeal on the basis that it was instituted well outside the statutory time limit of 28 days. The appeal was lodged eight months late, and the primary issue before the court was whether the appellant should be granted an extension of time to appeal.

The court examined the principles governing the extension of time for appeals, emphasising the importance of considering whether any prejudice would be suffered by the respondent if the extension were granted. The court noted that in this case, the respondent had not demonstrated any prejudice as a result of the late filing of the appeal. Additionally, the court recognised that a valuation was necessary to determine the correct outcome of the case, and thus granting the extension of time would serve the interests of justice.

In light of the absence of prejudice to the respondent and the necessity of the valuation, the court granted the appellant's application for an extension of time. The court held that the appeal would proceed, and the merits of the case would be considered on their own merits.

No further orders were made by the court in this matter.

Orders