Enright v The Valuer-General

[2010] QLC 143

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Enright & Anor v The Valuer-General [2010] QLC 0143
PARTIES:	Phillip Massey Enright and Janette Carol Field (appellants)
v.
The Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO.:	VLA537-10
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against annual valuation under Valuation of Land Act 1944
DELIVERED ON:	24 November 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER	Mr BR O'Connor, Judicial Registrar
ORDER:	The Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	Jurisdiction – late filing of appeal – whether reasonable excuse
APPEARANCES:	Mr P M Enright for the appellants Mr P Prasad (Principal Lawyer, Department of Environment and Resource Management) for the respondent

1. The issue for determination in this matter is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal lodged four 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."

2. 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. 

3. 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". 

The parties submissions:

1. The appellants’ case was conducted by one of the landowners Mr Phillip Enright.  Mr Enright tendered a written statement outlining his intensive business and community involvement over the relevant 42 day period.  He supplemented this with oral evidence.  The key dates and activities are extracted from his statement are listed below:

   “Between the date of the Chief Executive’s revised valuation, 10 August, 2010 and the date nominated by which my appeal was required to be lodged, 21 September, 2010, I was engaged in activities which included, but are not limited to the following;

   ·    6 August, 2010 – 23 August, 20101 I and Janette Carol Field were travelling in the Northern Territory and Western Australia ( I can provide documentation to support my presence in these areas)

   ·…