Legal Research
Cases
Fischer v The Valuer-General

Fischer v The Valuer-General

Case [1990] QLAC 18 27 August 1990

Jurisdiction

Limitation Periods

Statutory Interpretation

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[1990] QLAC 18

LAND APPEAL COURT,

BRISBANE
Re:                Appeals against decisions of Land Court
  to strike out appeals for want of
  jurisdiction -
Valuation of Land Act.

W.M. Fischer and T.J. Fischer
v.
The Valuer-General

J U D G M E N T

There are three appeals before us by Warren Mazlin Fischer and Theodora Jeanette Fischer against the decision of the Land Court to strike out the appeals made to that Court on grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain them. The appeals to the Land Court were against determinations of the Valuer-General in respect of the land contained in Valuation Roll No 4270 (one appeal) and Valuation Roll No 4297 (two appeals). The decisions of the Valuer-General, the subject of the appeals, were in respect of annual valuations. Under
s. 16J(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944-1987, an appeal to the Land Court "shall not lie" against a decision of the Valuer-General upon an objection "unless it is instituted within 28 days after the date of issue to the owner concerned by the Valuer-General of notice of his decision upon the objection (which date of issue shall be stated in such notice)." Sub-s. (3) of the section provides that "an appeal shall be instituted by filing a notice of appeal in the Land Court registry".
In the three subject cases, "the date of issue" as stated in each notice of the decision is 29th May, 1989. 28 clear days from such date expired on 26th June, 1989. It is not in dispute that the notices of appeal were signed and dated 26th June and that on 28th June - two days later - at 9.45 a.m. the appeals were filed in the Land Court registry by Mr Fischer by hand. The appeals were therefore filed outside the period prescribed by s.16J(2). The learned Member in the Court below held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals and struck them out. The appellants ask this Court to set aside the decision on grounds as follows:

"The decision has been made on a wrong basis in law.

The Court did not give adequate consideration to the actual effects which deposition by hand of the appeal had on Land Court Registry processes and procedures compared with processes and procedures which would ensue had the appeal been lodged in the normal course of the post.

The Court in coming to its decision did not adequately take into account the intention of the law. "

The second ground of the appeals was not argued before us.

This Court has held on a number of occasions that the procedure set forth in s. 21 of the Act for the institution of appeals against decisions of the Valuer-General in respect of general valuations are mandatory - see Seaworld Pty. Ltd. and Ors v. The Valuer-General (1978) 5 Q.L.C.R. p. 309; Schirmer v. The Valuer-General (1974) 1 Q.L.C.R. 144; Franklin and Ors v. The Valuer-General (1978) 5 Q.L.C.R. 181. The provisions…

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 Fischer v The Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Fischer v The Valuer-General [1990] QLAC 18
Case: [1990] QLAC 18
Decision Date: 27 August 1990

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fischer v The Valuer-General involves an appeal by Warren Mazlin Fischer and Theodora Jeanette Fischer against the Land Court's decision to dismiss their appeals on jurisdictional grounds. The appeals were filed against the Valuer-General's decisions on annual valuations for land contained in Valuation Roll No 4270 and Valuation Roll No 4297. The Valuer-General's decisions were issued on 29th May 1989, and the appeals were filed on 28th June 1989, outside the 28-day statutory period for filing appeals. The Land Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals and struck them out. The appellants argued that the Land Court erred in not considering the impact of their personal circumstances and the delay in receiving the notices on their ability to file the appeals within the statutory period.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the Land Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals filed outside the statutory period. The court examined the statutory provisions governing the institution of appeals against the Valuer-General's decisions. It noted that the statutory provisions for filing appeals are mandatory and that the legislature intended for time to run from the date stated as the date of issue. The court considered whether the provisions for extending the time to file appeals in certain circumstances could apply where the delay was caused by a delay in the transmission of mail. The court found that while the statutory provisions were intended to relieve hardship caused by delays in the transmission of mail, the appellants had failed to prove that the delay in filing the appeals was caused by such a delay.

The court held that the Land Court was correct in finding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals filed outside the statutory period. The court rejected the appellants' argument that the delay in receiving the notices caused by personal stress should have been taken into account. The court concluded that the appellants had failed to prove that the delay in filing the appeals was caused by a delay in the transmission of mail and that the Valuer-General had complied with the statutory requirements. The court affirmed the decision of the Land Court and dismissed the appeals.

The court's decision highlights the importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions governing the institution of appeals. The court found that the statutory provisions for filing appeals are mandatory and that the legislature intended for time to run from the date stated as the date of issue. The court also noted that the provisions for extending the time to file appeals in certain circumstances are intended to relieve hardship caused by delays in the transmission of mail, but that such delays must be proven to the satisfaction of the court. The court rejected the appellants' argument that their personal circumstances should have been taken into account in determining whether the appeals were filed within the statutory period. The court's decision affirms the importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions governing the institution of appeals and the limited circumstances in which such provisions may be extended.

Orders