Falzon v Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2006] QLC 31
•1 June 2006
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Falzon v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2006] QLC 31 PARTIES: Sam James Falzon
(applicant/appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2005/0713 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Jurisdiction - Appeal against unimproved value under the Valuation of Land Act1944. DELIVERED ON: 1 June 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Dalby MEMBER: Mr RS Jones ORDER: The court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. CATCHWORDS: Jurisdiction – late filing of appeal – whether reasonable excuse exists pursuant to s.57 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. APPEARANCES: Mr S J Falzon, in person for the appellant
Mr B Tannock, Senior Valuer, for the respondent
The appellant, Mr Falzon, has appealed against the respondent department's assessment of the unimproved value of his land being Lot 32 on Registered Plan 893193 located at 110 Moreton Street Dalby. The notice of appeal filed by Mr Falzon in the registry of the Land Court was filed outside of the time period prescribed by the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA).[1] The matter before me is to determine whether or not a "reasonable excuse" exists for the filing of the notice of appeal outside of the time period prescribed.
[1] See ss55 and 56.
Background
The background facts concerning this matter are brief and largely without controversy. In respect of the relevant facts, I find as follows:
i.Mr Falzon is illiterate and had to rely on the assistance of others to complete the notice of appeal form.
ii.On 21 June 2005 the respondent issued its Decision On Objection advising that the objection against the assessment of the unimproved value of the land in the sum $43,500 had been disallowed. Accordingly, the 42-day period prescribed by the VLA expired on 2 August 2005.
iii.The Notice of Appeal was executed on 26 August 2005 and received by post in the registry of the Land Court on 29 August 2005.
Reasonable Excuse
Section 57 of the VLA relevantly provides:
"(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)If the owner satisfies the court under subsection (1), the court may hear and decide the appeal…."
In considering matters such as this, it is important to bear in mind that sections such as 57(1) are remedial in nature having been introduced in order to ameliorate the harsh consequences of a failure to comply with statutory time requirements.[2] Notwithstanding this, the excuse must be, objectively speaking, a substantial one establishing a reasonable cause or explanation.[3] In deciding whether or not a reasonable excuse exists, I have had particular regard to the reasoning of the Burt CJ in Stevens v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust.[4] In Stevens his Honour at 235 said in respect of the legislation before him which gave the Court power to grant relief where it considered the delay "… was occasioned by mistake or by other reasonable cause":
"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 might be expected to delay the 'taking of action' by a reasonable man…"
[2]Department of Transport v Congress Community Development and Education Unit Limited (unreported decision of the LAC (A97/09, 25 June 1998).
[3] AG Russell v The Crown (1992-93) 14 QLCR 2020 at 204 (LAC).
[4] (1978) WAR 232 (FC).
In the circumstances of this case I have no doubt that Mr Falzon would have found it very difficult to formulate and have finalised his notice of appeal. I accept entirely his evidence that he was required to find some person who was willing and able to assist him to complete that task. However, the fact that Mr Falzon is illiterate does not of itself explain the time delay between receiving the advice on his notice of objection and the filing of the notice of appeal. Mr Falzon when asked about this delay was not able to provide any reasonable explanation, particularly in circumstances where he agreed that some time shortly after receiving the decision concerning his objection he was advised by an officer of the respondent about the importance of meeting the statutory requirements, including time limits, imposed under the VLA concerning such appeals.
Conclusion
Having considered the explanation provided by Mr Falzon and the surrounding circumstances concerning his delay in having the notice of appeal filed in the registry of the Land Court I conclude that a reasonable excuse has not been established. Accordingly, I must find that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Order
The Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear appeal AV 2005/0713.
R S JONES
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0