ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2)

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2) [2019] QLC 31

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:

1 May 2019 [ex tempore]

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

1 May 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

WA Isdale

ORDERS:

1.     Subpoena allowed.

2.     The general application to set aside the subpoena is dismissed.

3.     Costs are reserved.

4.     Costs of and incidental to Mr Cross giving evidence, without due compliance of the Rules, will be borne by the appellant on the standard basis of assessment.

5.     Costs of any adjournment necessary for the respondent to deal with evidence by Mr Cross, will be borne by the appellant on the standard basis of assessment.

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 24K, r 24L
Land Valuation Act 2010 s 155

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

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. The Court notes that the appeal before it, in accordance with the governing legislation, the Land Valuation Act 2010, is, under section 155 (1), described in the following terms:

155 Appeal right

(1)    An objector may appeal to the Land Court against the objection decision for the objection.

1. That has occurred and the appeal is before the Court. The actual dollar amount of the valuation has been changed by a notice under the legislation to an amount that is different to what it was when the valuation on the relevant date in 2015 was originally issued, and to a figure that existed in these proceedings before, essentially, only a short time ago when the figure was revised to be in accordance with that of the valuation expert evidence proposed to be called on behalf of the respondent. The proceedings before the Court is described as an appeal. It is essentially a de novo matter. It is not a judicial review of the decision of the person who appears to be, in this case, it was Mr Cross as the delegate for the Valuer-General who dealt with the objection decision. It is not, in any sense, a judicial review.

1. However, the legislation very clearly says the words that I quoted. The Court must give full faith and credit to what the legislature has enacted. It is an appeal to this Court against the objection decision for the objection. It would be not difficult or uncommon to think that the decision in question is not simply the amount of the valuation, but the decision in the sense that decision with reasons is ordinarily considered. And it…