Hua v Valuer-General; Pao v Valuer-General; Nguyen v Valuer-General

The applicants, Hua, Pao, and Nguyen, brought appeals against the Valuer-General regarding the valuation of their respective properties. The central dispute revolved around the applicants' failure to lodge their appeals within the stipulated time frame, a requirement under the Land Valuation Act 2010. The applicants sought the court's permission to proceed with their appeals despite the missed deadlines, arguing that they had reasonable excuses for the delay. The court had to determine whether the applicants' circumstances warranted an extension of time to appeal, considering the statutory provisions and relevant case law.

The primary legal issue the court faced was whether the applicants could demonstrate a "reasonable excuse" for their failure to appeal within the required timeframe. This question hinged on whether the error in the delivery of the objection decision notices and the lack of response to the applicants' inquiries constituted sufficient grounds for an extension under section 158(2)(b) of the Act. The court had to weigh the statutory requirement against the applicants' evidence of administrative errors and communication breakdowns.

In reaching its decision, the court drew on the precedent set in the case of 50 Long Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Resource Management. The court found that the circumstances surrounding the misdirected objection decision notices and the lack of communication from the respondent were compelling enough to constitute a "reasonable excuse." This conclusion was based on the similarity of these circumstances to those in the 50 Long case, where the court had previously found a reasonable excuse despite a late appeal. The court held that the applicants had demonstrated substantial and unforeseen obstacles that prevented them from timely lodging their appeals.

The court granted the applicants' appeals and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeals. This decision allowed the applicants to proceed with their objections to the land valuations despite the initial failure to meet the statutory deadline. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of considering the applicants' evidence and the reasonable nature of the obstacles they faced in determining the appropriate course of action.