Menon & Anor v Department of Natural Resources and Mines

[2003] QLC 79

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Menon & Anor v Department of Natural Resources and Mines   [2003] QLC 0079

PARTIES:Beatrice L and Prem K Menon and Ronald Ross-Gilder

(applicants)
  v.

Chief Executive Department of Natural Resources and Mines

(respondent)

FILE NO:  AV2003/0587, AV2003/0588 and AV2003/0589

DIVISION:  Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:  Jurisdiction – Appeals against Unimproved Valuation

DELIVERED ON:  7 November 2003

DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

MEMBER:  Mr BR O'Connor, Judicial Registrar

ORDER:Reasonable excuse has been established in the circumstances of the present cases.  The Court thus has jurisdiction to hear the subject appeals.

CATCHWORDS:  Jurisdiction – Late filing of appeals – Whether reasonable excuse

APPEARANCES:  Mr PK Menon for the applicants

Mr J O'Rourke (Principal Legal Officer, Department of Natural Resources and Mines) for the respondent

1. The issue for determination in this matter is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeals lodged one day after the due date. Section 57 of the Valuation of Land Act1944 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 s.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 lodgment advanced by the appellant falls within the term "reasonable excuse" as interpreted by the cases, particularly those since the introduction of s.57 as amended in 2000.

1. 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".

Background

1. The prescribed time for lodging these appeals expired on Monday, 19 August 2003.  Notice of Appeals were received in the Land Court registry on 20 August 2003.  These dates reveal a period of one day exceeding the due date for lodgment.

2. Evidence was given for the appellants by Mr Prem K Menon, who is one of the owners of the subject land.  Mr Menon claims bereavement (and following related events) in his family during the appeal period provided circumstances which properly amount to reasonable excuse being established.

3. He states that his father-in-law, who had been living in a nursing home in Brisbane, passed away suddenly on 23 July 2002.  He further states that, "... my wife who looks after the children along with me, she was in an absolute state of shock and she was grieving.  She also had to look after her mother.  Her mother is also nearly 70 years old.  And, besides that, she also had to make all the funeral arrangements and all the other formalities in accordance with her religious beliefs."

4. Mr Menon states increased duties fell on him during this period in care of the children, including taking them to extra curricular activities.  The prevailing situation was made more difficult by Mr Menon's shift work.

5. Mr O'Rourke, legal representative for the respondent, acknowledges that death of a close relative is a very traumatic situation for any family.  However, he points out that the death occurred some four weeks prior to the final date of valid lodgment.  He refers me to recent cases on jurisdiction (Ballinger [2002] QLC 84) and (Hall, 14 December 2002) where the Court held reasonable excuse was not established by the applicant being preoccupied with family matters or personal business.

6. I consider the circumstances of the bereavement here in issue are distinguishable from the family matters and personal business in the Ballinger and Hall cases.  Further, the decision of the Land Appeal Court in the case of Director-General, Department of Transport v Congress Community Development and Education Unit Ltd (A97-09) 25 June 1998, unreported, suggests that the remedial provisions like s.57 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 should be construed to give the fullest relief which the fair meaning of its language will allow.  For reasonable excuse, the applicant does not have to be blameless.

7. In all the circumstances of the current case I am prepared to find that a reasonable excuse can be made out.  The fact that the appeals were ultimately lodged only one day late is a further factor favouring the appellants.  If it had been left for, say, some further weeks, the decision may well have been different.

8. I am conscious of the need for consistency in reasonable excuse decisions founding jurisdiction and the danger of creating an undesirable precedent.  However, the decision in this case should raise neither of these concerns.  Further, my experience is that family bereavement is rarely advanced as an excuse and, where it is, it would not automatically satisfy reasonable excuse.  Facts such as the relationship of the deceased to the appellants, the time of the death in relation to the final date for valid lodgment and the ultimate date of valid lodgment would be among the matters needing to be considered.

Order

Having considered the tests outline in the authorities and the facts of those cases, I conclude that a reasonable excuse has been established in the circumstances of the present cases.  Accordingly, I find the Court has jurisdiction to hear the subject appeals.

BR O'CONNOR

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR