Golledge v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2006] QLC 77
•18 December 2006
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Golledge v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2006] QLC 77 PARTIES: David and Sheryn Golledge
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO.: AV2005/1310 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Jurisdiction – Appeal against unimproved valuation DELIVERED ON: 18 December 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Maroochydore MEMBER Mr BR O'Connor, Judicial Registrar ORDER: The Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
CATCHWORDS: Jurisdiction – Late filing of appeal – Whether reasonable excuse APPEARANCES: Mrs S Golledge for the appellants
Ms C Liu (Lawyer, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources and Water) for the respondent
The issue for determination in this matter is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal 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 appellant 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.
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:
Mrs Sheryn Golledge appeared for the appellants and states that she posted the relevant appeal forms at a Post Box at the General Store at Witta, a small country town some 20 minutes outside Maleny. The appeal form was dated 26 September 2005 (a Monday) and Mrs Golledge states she would have posted it at the Witta Post Box that same day or the following day. The appeal form did not arrive in the Land Court registry until 6 October 2005 (the Thursday of the following week). The 42 days expired on 4 October 2005.
Mrs Golledge states she normally posts her mail at Maleny when work takes her there. However because she was aware of the 42 day time limit in the appeal and not proposing to travel to Maleny in the immediate future, she posted the appeal form from Witta. She expected it would have arrived in Brisbane within 7 days or less.
At the Court hearing, Mrs Golledge was given leave to produce to the Court evidence of expected postal delivery times from the Witta Post Office. She made the necessary enquiries with the postal authorities and forwarded relevant information in written form.
The respondent was given the opportunity to comment on this evidence but was content to have it admitted without further comment.
The letter states (as far as relevant):
"1.If a letter was collected from Maleny P.O. at 5 pm, it is possible that it could arrive in Brisbane P.O. next day. That does not necessarily mean delivered to its final destination. It could also take 2 – 3 days to Brisbane.
2. If a letter is posted at Witta General Store, and misses the daily collection, then another day must be added : if there is a weekend involved then 2 more days must be added to the delivery time.
3. The Sunshine Coast Sorting Office is at Nambour, therefore a letter would go from Witta, to Maleny, to Nambour, to Brisbane."
Mrs Golledge also states that there have been occasions when the mail from the Sunshine Coast to her Witta location has taken up to 8 days (including the weekend).
Decision
From the facts above it seems that the normal course of delivery from Witta to Brisbane would have been two to three business days. Accepting Mrs Golledge that she posted the form on the 26 or 27 September 2005, it should have arrived in the Brisbane registry by say Friday 30th, certainly no later than 4 October in the normal course of post.
On the evidence presented, I am satisfied that the late delivery was caused by a delay in the post. Reasonable excuse is thus established.
Order
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
BR O'CONNOR
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR
0
0
0