Brown v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2001] QLC 115
•12 October 2001
|
BRISBANE
12 OCTOBER 2001
Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Property ID: 467
Local Government: Caboolture
(AV2001/0550)
Janice L and Terrance M Brown
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
DECISION ON JURISDICTION
Background:
This matter relates to land at Keala Court, Banksia Beach, and described as Lot 171 on RP 105652, Parish of Woorim. The subject land is used for the purpose of a single unit dwelling and has an area of 529 m². The matter before the Court relates to the preliminary question of whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the matter in respect of an appeal against an annual valuation at 1 October 2000 under the Valuation of Land Act1944. Janice L Brown appeared and gave evidence for the appellants. Mr R Paterson, Principal Legal Officer, appeared for the respondent.
The Facts:The Chief Executive issued a valuation of the subject land on 26 February 2001. Following an objection, the Chief Executive determined a figure of $49,000 on 1 July 2001. The appellants appealed on 16 August 2001 claiming the unimproved value should be $40,000.
On 21 August 2001 the Registrar of the Land Court notified the appellants that the appeal appeared to have been lodged after the statutory period of 42 days allowed for in an appeal under s.45(2) of the Act, which was 12 August 2001. The Registrar advised that such an appeal did not lie, unless the appellants were able to satisfy the requirement of s.57(1) and s.57(2), copies of which were supplied to the appellants for information.
On 27 August 2001 the appellants responded to the Registrar advising that they understood that the 42 days in which to reply would be from the date that the notice of decision by the Chief Executive was received by the appellants. The appellants also noted that the date of issue of the decision on objection was shown as Sunday, being 1 July 2001.
On 3 September 2001 the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the response from the appellants and advised that the matter would be set down for hearing to determine jurisdiction at the first available sittings of the Court at Caboolture. On 14 September 2001 a Court Notice issued setting down the hearing on jurisdiction for 27 September 2001.
Mrs Brown explains that due to a very personal overseas family reunion the matter had inadvertently been set aside until the letter from the Registrar was relocated on 14 August 2001. The appellants concede that the matter was overlooked entirely as a consequence of personal commitments, but seek the indulgence of the Court, bearing in mind that the matter had been then forwarded to the Court immediately on 14 August 2001. The Notice of Appeal (Form 59) was signed on 14 August 2001, and the envelope addressed to the Registrar was stamped by Australia Post at 6 p.m. on 14 August 2001, and received by the Registrar on 16 August 2001 in the ordinary course of post.
The matter of delay in posting out a notice for decision on objection was addressed in WM & TJ Fischer v. The Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 129. In that matter there had been a delay of 10 days between the date of the notice and its receipt by the appellants through the ordinary course of post. There was no dispute that the statutory period runs from the date of issue (now 42 days), but rather that the extended delay in receiving the notice caused hardship to the appellants.
In the circumstances of that case the Land Appeal Court said at p.135:
" On a literal reading of s.21(3)(A)(a)(i) there is no reason why undue delay in the transmission of mail from the Valuer-General to the owner cannot cause a failure to institute the appeal in time. It may not be as obvious an instance as that where undue delay in the mail makes the difference between the Registrar receiving it in time or out of time. However we would hold that undue delay in the mail is capable of causing a failure to institute the appeal within time whether it occurs at the beginning of the appeal period or the end of it, and whether it relates to postage from Valuer-General to owner or owner to the Court."
In the current matter there is no argument that there were any delays in the ordinary course of post, but only that overlooking of the notice by the appellants had contributed to the delay in receiving the Notice of Appeal.
Mr Paterson advises that due to delays in the office of the respondent, there had been a delay in the posting of objection decision notices produced for the end of year interim issues. As a consequence of those delays in the computerised processing arrangements, the notices on objection had been incorrectly dated as 1 July 2001, when in effect they should have been printed on 6 July 2001 for distribution on 9 July 2001. Mr Paterson provides a copy of a QVAS Bulletin Notice No. 55 of 6 July 2001 to that effect. As a consequence of that delay, the effective date for commencement of the 42 days in which to appeal should have commenced from 9 July 2001, which then expired on 20 August 2001.
Mr Paterson agrees that on those amended dates the Notice of Appeal to the Court was received within the 42 days. Mr Paterson further advises that in his opinion the delay in issuing the notice of decision on objection constitutes a reasonable excuse within the meaning of the Act. On that evidence I find that this Court does have jurisdiction to hear the merits of the matter, and the appeal should proceed.
NG DIVETT
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0