ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer-General

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2019] QLC 30

PARTIES:

ISPT Pty Ltd
ACN 064 041 283
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:

LVA024-17

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

General application to set aside subpoena

DELIVERED ON:

30 April 2019 [ex tempore]

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

30 April 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

WA Isdale

ORDERS:

1.     The application is adjourned.

2.     Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – Land Court Rules 2000 – Application to set aside subpoena

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RELEVANCE – Whether the evidence of a witness is relevant or admissible

Land Court Rules 2000 r 24J, r 24L

F A Pidgeon & Sons Pty Ltd v Valuer-General; 310 Ann Street Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2018] QLC 27, applied.

APPEARANCES:

RJ Anderson QC (instructed by Otto Martiens) for the appellant
SP Fynes-Clinton, with JP Hastie (instructed by Clayton Utz) for the respondent

1. These are my reasons for decision on a general application filed yesterday, 29 April 2019, at around about 4 pm, on behalf of the respondent, to set aside a subpoena dated the 22 March 2019, directed to Mr Stephen Cross to attend to give evidence.

1. Mr Cross, an officer of the respondent Valuer-General, has come to Court today as required. The parties have provided written submissions. Mr Cross was, as stated in ground 3 of the general application, the Valuer-General’s delegate, and I quote: “who decided the objection which the appellant made to the annual valuation for the land the subject of the appeal.”

1. The respondent submits that the subpoena should be set aside on the basis that the evidence which Mr Cross – and I quote: “may be expected to give is irrelevant to the issues in dispute in the appeal and, in certain respects, inadmissible.”

1. That is taken from paragraph 3 of the written submissions from the respondent.

1. The Court must consider the situation as it is presently apparent and I stress that. The Court has not been provided with any witness statement of what evidence Mr Cross is able to give so is required to decide the present question within this constraint. The rules of court provide that, for instance, in the case of a witness not being in the role of an expert in this case, the party must provide to the registry and serve on the other party a statement containing their evidence. That is in rule 24J. It appears to be applicable. It is in these terms:

24J Statement of evidence of a witness other than expert
(1)  This rule applies to a party who intends to do either or both of the   
        following—

(a) give evidence in a proceeding;

(b) call another person, other than an expert, to give evidence in a  
            proceeding 

(2)   Before giving the evidence or calling the other person, the party must deliver
       to the registry, personally or by facsimile or email, and serve on each other