Body Corporate for One the Esplanade Community titles Scheme 14060 v Chief Executive of the Department of Environment and Resource Management

In the case of Body Corporate for One the Esplanade Community titles Scheme 14060 v Chief Executive of the Department of Environment and Resource Management, the applicant sought judicial review of the respondent's decision to dismiss its appeal against a valuation notice. The applicant, a body corporate, had retained a management company to manage its affairs. When this management company was acquired by another, the new company did not notify the Chief Executive of Land Valuations of its change of address. Although a redirection service was established to direct mail from the old to the new management company, a valuation notice sent to the old management company was not received by the applicant. The applicant lodged an objection to the notice after the objection period had expired, which was rejected by the respondent as out of time. However, the respondent agreed to consider the matter under section 28 and found no alteration to the valuation was warranted. The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal, which the respondent agreed to consider under section 44(2). However, the respondent was not satisfied that the failure to lodge a timely objection was through no fault of the applicant.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the respondent made a mistake of law and whether the respondent took into account irrelevant considerations. The court found that the respondent did not make a mistake of law, as the applicant's objection was indeed out of time. The court also found that the respondent did not take into account irrelevant considerations, as the failure to lodge a timely objection was not through no fault of the applicant. The court held that the respondent was entitled to consider the circumstances of the case and to make a finding as to whether the failure to lodge a timely objection was through no fault of the applicant.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the respondent's decision was not affected by any error of law or irrelevant considerations. The court noted that the applicant had failed to provide evidence to support its claim that the failure to lodge a timely objection was through no fault of the applicant. The court held that the respondent's decision was reasonable and that the applicant had not established any ground for judicial review. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated any prejudice or injustice caused by the respondent's decision.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and no orders were made. The respondent's decision to dismiss the applicant's appeal against the valuation notice was upheld.