Billinghurst v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water
[2006] QLC 53
•8 September 2006
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Billinghurst v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water [2006] QLC 53 PARTIES: Denise and Graham Billinghurst
(applicants)v. Chief Executive
Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water
(respondent)FILE NO.: AV2006/0289 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Jurisdiction – Appeal against Unimproved Valuation DELIVERED ON: 8 September 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER Mr BR O'Connor, Judicial Registrar ORDER: The Court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter. CATCHWORDS: Jurisdiction – late filing of appeal – whether reasonable excuse APPEARANCES: Mr G Billinghurst appeared for the appellants.
Ms C Liu (Legal Officer) appeared for the respondent
The issue for determination in this matter is whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal lodged some seven months 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 section 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 lodgement advanced by the appellants falls within the term "reasonable excuse" as interpreted by the cases, particularly those since the introduction of s.57 as amended in 2000.
The authorities on the term "reasonable excuse" or similar expressions are usefully collected in the 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".
Background:
Evidence as to the late lodgement was provided by Graham Billinghurst, one of the co-owners of the subject property. It is acknowledged by both parties that the date of issue of the Notice of decision on objection was 18 October 2005, and that Mr Billinghurst sent a Notice of Appeal to the Chief Executive, Natural Resources, Mines and Water, on 30 November 2005 but did not at that stage send a copy to the Land Court. It was only when he inquired of the respondent as to the progress of his appeal some months later that he realised that the respondent had not sent a copy to the Court. It was at that stage that he forwarded an appeal to the Land Court. A copy of such appeal was not received by the Court until 19 July 2006.
Decision:
There is no suggestion that Mr Billinghurst was in any way misled by the respondent as to the requirement to lodge the appeal with the Court (in certain other jurisdiction cases where this has occurred it has formed the basis for establishing reasonable excuse). Also the requirement to send the Appeal Notice to the Land Court, as well as to the Department, is clearly stated on the appeal form. The new Appeal Form recently introduced does make this requirement more clear to a person lodging an appeal.
There is no other explanation for the late lodgement by Mr Billinghurst which could fall within the line of cases where reasonable excuse has been held to exist. In present circumstances I find no reasonable excuse to have been established.
Order:
The Court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter.
BR O'CONNOR
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR
0
0
0