Corbet v Department of Natural Resources and Water

Case [2006] QLC 75

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Corbet & Ors v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2006] QLC  75
PARTIES: Mark and Peter Corbet and Ors
(appellants)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NOS.: AV2006/0676; AV2006/0677; RV2006/0678; RV2006/0679; AV2006/0680 and AV2006/0681
DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING: Jurisdiction – Appeals against unimproved valuations
DELIVERED ON: 18 December 2006
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD AT: Kingaroy
MEMBER Mr BR O'Connor, Judicial Registrar
ORDER:

The Court has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals. 

CATCHWORDS: Jurisdiction – Late filing of appeals – Whether reasonable excuse
APPEARANCES: Mr P Corbett for the appellant
Mr M Heather, (Acting Principal Lawyer, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources and Water) for the respondent

  1. The issue for determination in these matters is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeals lodged two 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     Late Filing

(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 relevant authorities, particularly those since the introduction of s.57 of the VLA as amended in 2000.

  1. 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 case, 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:

  1. Mr Peter Corbett representing the landowners in these cases states in oral evidence before the Court that the reason for the late lodgement was essentially a miscalculation of time on his part.  He mistakenly thought the 42 days expired on 17 August 2006 rather than on 15 August 2006.  He posted the appeal form by Express Post on 15 August 2006, the form arriving in the Brisbane Land Court registry on 17 August 2006.  I note that the Express Post guarantees next day delivery but this was not until the 17 August 2006 due to the Exhibition Holiday in Brisbane on Wednesday 16 August. 

Decision

In the present circumstances there is not a sufficient basis to establish reasonable excuse in this case.  

Order

The Court has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals. 

BR O'CONNOR

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR

Details
AGLC
Corbet v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2006] QLC 75
Case
[2006] QLC 75
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Corbet v Department of Natural Resources and Water, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the jurisdiction over appeals that had been filed outside the stipulated time frame. The appellant, Corbet, sought to appeal decisions made by the Department of Natural Resources and Water, but the appeals were lodged beyond the legally permissible period. The central issue before the Court was whether the late filing of the appeals could be excused under the circumstances presented by Corbet.

The Court examined whether there existed any reasonable excuse for the late filing, as provided under the relevant legislative provisions. The appellant argued that various factors, including delays in the administrative process and miscommunications, contributed to the tardiness of the appeals. However, the Court had to assess these arguments against the established legal framework governing the time limits for filing appeals. The Court considered the statutory requirement for timely appeals and the principle that strict adherence to statutory time limits is essential to maintain the integrity of the administrative process.

The Court held that the onus was on Corbet to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the late filing. Despite the arguments presented, the Court found that the reasons provided did not constitute a sufficient excuse under the law. The Court underscored the necessity of strict compliance with procedural requirements and noted that the lateness of the filing was not attributable to any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension of the time limits. Consequently, the Court concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appeals due to the failure to file within the prescribed period.

The Court's decision resulted in the dismissal of the appeals and a declaration that it had no jurisdiction to hear them. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and the principle that exceptions to these rules must be narrowly construed. This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of timely compliance with procedural requirements in administrative law.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals.

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.