Grayem Forrest Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2006] QLC 14
•30 March 2006
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Grayem Forrest Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2006] QLC 14 PARTIES: Grayem Forrest Pty Ltd
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
(respondent)FILE NO.: AV2005/1557 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Jurisdiction – Appeal against Unimproved Valuation DELIVERED ON: 30 March 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Brisbane BEFORE Mr BR O'Connor (Judicial Registrar) ORDER: The Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the subject matter. CATCHWORDS: Jurisdiction – Late filing of appeal – Whether reasonable excuse APPEARANCES: Mr P Forrest for the appellant
Mr J O'Rourke, Principal Legal Officer, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water
The issue for determination in this matter is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal lodged 8 days after the closing date for appeal. Section 57 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 allows for "reasonable excuse" as a cause for such delay.
"57.(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 appellants falls within the term "reasonable excuse" as interpreted by the cases, particularly those since the introduction of s.57 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 cause, 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".
This issue of jurisdiction was originally determined by the Court on 6 December 2005 with a finding that reasonable excuse had not been established and that jurisdiction thus did not lie. The appellant did not appear at the hearing of that matter and subsequently claimed that it had not received notice of that hearing. A fresh hearing was requested.
Under r.45(2)(a) of the Land Court Rules 2000 the Court may set aside an order at any time if such order was made in the absence of a party. After considering the appellant's submission, the original order of 6 December 2005 finding no jurisdiction was set aside.
Mr Forrest (for the appellant) appeared in person at the current hearing on 27 March 2006 so that his earlier written material and subsequent oral submission could be properly considered, along with the Department's submission, on redetermining the jurisdiction issue.
The date of issue of the original departmental decision on objection was 23 August 2005 with 42 days for lodgement of appeal with the Court expiring on 4 October 2005. The relevant appeal was not lodged with the Land Court until 12 October 2005. The appellant had earlier lodged with the Department an appeal form (dated 29 August 2005) presumably shortly after this date. Mr Forrest claims the Department did not advise him of the need to lodge a separate appeal with the Court at this time. It was only when he subsequently inquired of the Department on 9 October 2005 as to the progress of the matter that he became aware of the need to also lodge an appeal with the Court.
It should be noted that the form 59 appeal notice clearly states the need to lodge with the Court and provides the Court address for such lodgement.
This is not a case of the Department having somehow misled the appellant as to what was required to be lodged. It is in contrast with certain other cases before the Court where a departmental officer has provided information or given an indication that lodgement with the Department was sufficient and that the Court would in time be notified by them (see, for example, Zolgaze Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines 22 August 2001).
In current circumstances, I find that reasonable excuse has not been established and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the present appeal.
Order:
The Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in this matter.
BR O'CONNOR
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR
0
0
0