Goss v Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2009] QLC 49

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Goss v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2009] QLC 0049

PARTIES:

George W and Patricia D Goss

(applicants)

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water

(respondent)

FILE NOS:

AV2007/0408 and AV2007/0841

DIVISION:

Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Hearing of an application

HEARD ON:

DELIVERED ON:

2 April 2009

Ex Tempore – 2 April 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

Mr RS Jones

ORDERS:

Application refused

APPEARANCES:

Mr Cowan, agent, for the appellants
Mr W Isdale of Counsel for the respondent

RS JONES

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT

IN THE LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

BEFORE MR RS JONES (Member)

BRISBANE, 2 APRIL 2009

(Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown.  Copies thereof must NOT be made or sold without the prior written authority of the Registrar
of the Land Court.)

AV2007/0408 & AV2007/0841

In the matter of an appeal against a valuation
Property ID:              73826
Local Authority:        Pine Rivers

George William Paul & Patricia Delyce Goss
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water

MR JONES:  Mr Cowen, in respect of the request under paragraph 2 of your application I am going to refuse it.  The reasons for that are that having regard to the correspondence dated 17^th March 2009 from the respondent to yourself, and the submissions made by Mr Isdale counsel for the respondent, the information sought is no longer necessary and is otherwise redundant because of the concession made or the clear intention of the department which is to value the subject land at Dayboro on the basis that the criteria for satisfying that the land was being used for farming at the relevant date for the purposes of s.17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 had been met.  It appears to me that there is just simply no longer a dispute about that particular issue, therefore there is no need for any further information going to that.

Turning then to paragraph 1 of the application, this part of the application must also fail for a number of reasons.  First, there is no affidavit material put before me as to how such an office direction, assuming such direction does exist for the time being, would be pivotal or even necessary for the preparation of any witness statements.  Second, there was no reason advanced as to why such affidavits in support of the application could not have been provided.  Third, Mr Cowen was unable to articulate how this document, assuming it exists, would be pivotal to the preparation of any witness statements.  In the absence of any evidence in support of the application it is not difficult to understand how Mr Cowen might have had some trouble in articulating that particular position.   Fourth, there is no evidence before me to prove in any way that such a document might or does in fact exist.  There were a number of assertions made by Mr Cowen from the Bar table, but in my view this does not constitute proof of the existence of the document. 

Mr Isdale also raised the fact that the document, assuming it existed, was in no way relevant to any of the matters raised in the grounds of appeal.  I disagree with that submission.  I agree with Mr Cowen that ground 2(a) would seem to embrace the issues that are involved with the alleged document, but that point is not sufficient to overcome the other difficulties that I have already referred to and caused me to conclude that this part of the application must also fail.

However that said, I would like to place on the record that it does appear to me that if, however, such a document does exist, having regard to the grounds raised in the notice of appeal, and I would like to express quite a firm but nonetheless preliminary view about this, that if such a document does exist it would be a disclosable document and ought be disclosed by the respondent.  But I am simply unable to take that particular matter any further.

---------