Britten v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water - [2006] QLC 22

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Britten & Anor v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water [2006] QLC 22

PARTIES: W and J Britten and Jedston Pty Ltd as Trustee for P and M Ryan
(appellants)

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water
(respondent)

FILE NOS: AV2006/0010

DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING: Jurisdiction – Appeal against Unimproved Valuation.

DELIVERED ON: 4 May 2006

DELIVERED AT: Gatton

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: Mr PA Smith

ORDERS:
The Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the subject matter.

CATCHWORDS: Jurisdiction – Late filing of appeal – Whether reasonable excuse.

APPEARANCES: Mr W. Britten for the appellants
Mr R Patterson for the respondent.

The issue for determination in this matter is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal lodged seven days after the due date. Section 57 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA) 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 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

At the hearing, Mr Britten gave evidence on behalf of the appellants. The respondent did not call any evidence.
There is common ground between the parties on most issues, which can be summarised as follows:
·The decision on objection was issued on 29 November 2005.
·The appellants received the decision on objection in the post on or about 12 December 2005.
·Throughout December 2005 the appellants’ property, which is situated in Logan, was subject to a large number of storms. Some of those storms resulted in some damage to the appellants’ property, principally a large gum tree which fell across the property damaging fencing, and a net. The damage caused by the gum tree was covered by insurance.
·Mr Britten completed a notice of appeal to the Land…

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.

Continue reading Britten v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water

Details

AGLC: Britten v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water [2006] QLC 22
Case: [2006] QLC 22
Decision Date: 4 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Britten v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water, the plaintiff, Mr. Britten, sought to appeal a decision made by the respondent, the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water, in relation to a matter concerning the environment and resource management. The case was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), which was tasked with determining whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the late filing of the appeal notice.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether there was a reasonable excuse for the late filing of the appeal notice. Mr. Britten argued that there were mitigating circumstances that warranted an extension of the time for filing the appeal. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible time limit, and as such, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The tribunal was required to weigh the arguments and determine whether Mr. Britten's circumstances provided a reasonable excuse for the delay.

The tribunal considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law pertaining to the late filing of appeals. It was noted that the law provides for extensions of time only in specific circumstances, and these must be substantiated by evidence. After carefully reviewing the evidence presented by Mr. Britten, the tribunal found that there was no reasonable excuse for the delay in filing the appeal notice. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the late filing. The tribunal's decision was based on the principle that strict compliance with statutory time limits is necessary to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process.

The tribunal ordered that the appeal be dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction. No further orders were made as the tribunal did not have the authority to consider the merits of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the subject matter.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Britten & Anor v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water [2006] QLC 22
PARTIES:	W and J Britten and Jedston Pty Ltd as Trustee for P and M Ryan (appellants)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water (respondent)
FILE NOS:	AV2006/0010
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Jurisdiction – Appeal against Unimproved Valuation.
DELIVERED ON:	4 May 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Gatton
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	Mr PA Smith
ORDERS:	The Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the subject matter.
CATCHWORDS:	Jurisdiction – Late filing of appeal – Whether reasonable excuse.
APPEARANCES:	Mr W. Britten for the appellants Mr R Patterson for the respondent.