Glasson v Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2007] QLC 81

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Glasson v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2007] QLC 0081
PARTIES:	Harry and Susan Glasson (appellants)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (respondent)
FILE NOS:	RV2006/0696 and RV2006/0697
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDINGS:	Appeals against rental valuations.
DELIVERED ON:	9 October 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Longreach
MEMBER:	Mr JJ Trickett, President
ORDER:	The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine Appeals RV2006/0696 and RV2006/0697.
CATCHWORDS:	Unimproved value – appeals against rental valuations – appeals filed out of time – reasonable excuse – misunderstanding by appellants or statutory requirements – no jurisdiction for the Court to hear the appeals.
APPEARANCES:	Mrs J Milne - for the appellants. Mr W Isdale - for the respondent

Background

1. Mr and Mrs Glasson (the appellants) are the owners of land situated in the Shire of Isisford.  As at 1 October 2005, the respondent valued one parcel of land at $710,000 and another parcel of land $435,000, under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act).  Both notices of appeal were filed in the Land Court Registry on 22 August 2006.  However, the Registrar of the Land Court was of the opinion that the notices of appeal had been filed outside the prescribed period.  He advised the appellants that the appeals did not lie unless they could satisfy the Land Court that they had a reasonable excuse for filing the appeals out of time. 

The Facts

1. The facts in these cases were outlined by Mrs J Milne, a sister of Mrs Glasson.  The appellants live on a grazing property outside Yaraka in Western Queensland.  They were under the impression that the appeals had to be posted on the 15^th of August 2006 and travelled to Yaraka on that date to post the notices of appeal.  There are mail services only twice a week from Yaraka. It seems that the mail had been collected on that day prior to the appeals being posted.  In those circumstances, the envelope containing the notices of appeal stayed in the mailbox until the following Thursday.  This was the reason that the appeals were filed in the Land Court Registry out of time.

The Legislative Requirements

1. The Act provides that an appeal shall not lie unless it is instituted within 42 days after the date of issue to the owner of notice of the Chief Executive's decision upon the owner's objection:  s.45(2) and s.55(2).  There is no dispute that the Chief Executive's decision on objection was issued to the owners on 4 July 2006.  Therefore, the 42 day period expired on 15 August 2006.  In these cases, the appeals were filed seven days out of time. 

2. Section 57(1) provides for late filing of appeals:

   "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."

3. The question before the Court is whether the owners had a reasonable excuse for filing the appeals out of time 

4. The term "reasonable excuse" has come before this Court on a number of occasions.  Authorities on the meaning of that term, 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.  Those 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, 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". 

Conclusion

1. In these cases there is no suggestion that there has been delay in the post.  There was a misunderstanding on the part of the appellants about the requirements for lodging appeals in time.  Although correct in calculating the 42 day period to expire on 15 August 2006, they thought the appeals had to be posted by that date.  However, the requirement was that they must be filed in the Registry, which meant they had to be posted some time earlier.  Having regard to the authorities, I cannot hold that misunderstanding of the requirements of the Act was a reasonable excuse for filing the appeals out of time.  Therefore, this Court is unable to hear the appeals.  The appeals were not validly instituted and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear them.

Order

The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine Appeals RV2006/0696 and RV2006/0697.

JJ TRICKETT

PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT