Mir v Valuer General

[2010] NSWLEC 201

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Mir v Valuer General [2010] NSWLEC 201
PARTIES:	APPLICANTS: John and Marie Mir RESPONDENT: Valuer General
FILE NUMBER(S):	30665 of 2010
CORAM:	Biscoe J
KEY ISSUES:	APPEAL :- under s 38(2) Valuation of Land Act 1916 after 60 day period for making an appeal expires.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Valuation of Land Act 1916, s 38(2)
CASES CITED:	Fitzpatrick Investments Pty Ltd v Valuer General of NSW [2010] NSWLEC 188 Jassls Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2006] NSWLEC 59
DATES OF HEARING:	8 October 2010
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	8 October 2010
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANTS: Mr J Mir, in person SOLICITORS n/a RESPONDENT: Ms A Talbot SOLICITOR Crown Solicitor's Office

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

BISCOE J

8 October 2010

30665 of 2010

MIR v VALUER GENERAL

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The applicants, John and Marie Mir, move to allow an appeal under s 38(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 after the 60 day period for making an appeal provided in s 38(1) has expired. The respondent, the Valuer General, neither consents to nor opposes the application.

2 The four main considerations affecting the exercise of discretion under s 38(2) are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the extent of any prejudice and whether there is any arguable case: Jassls Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2006] NSWLEC 59; Fitzpatrick Investments Pty Ltd v Valuer General of NSW [2010] NSWLEC 188.

3 The delay was short: the application was filed only a few days outside the 60 day period. The reasons for the delay have not been expressly explained but I infer from the medical evidence that it had something to do with a stress-related condition from which the applicant is suffering to which I will refer in more detail shortly. The Valuer General concedes that there is no prejudice to the Valuer General. It is not suggested that the applicant does not have an arguable case. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to allow the applicant leave to appeal after the 60 day period.

4 I turn to Mr Mir’s further application that the proceedings be stood over for a period of six months. The application is not opposed by the Valuer General. The basis of the application is a medical report. The medical practitioner says that Mr Mir has consulted him for treatment of health problems, that he is currently under a lot of stress, and that he is having difficulty coping with his affairs. The medical practitioner recommends that he set aside any matters which are not absolutely essential until his health is better and he is able to cope with things better. The medical practitioner estimates that Mr Mir should be recovered enough to cope with this in about six months. In the circumstances, I am persuaded that it is just to stand the proceedings over for six months to 1 April 2011.

5 The orders of the Court are as follows:

1. Pursuant to s 38(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 the applicant is allowed to appeal after the 60 day period provided in s 38(1).
2. The time for filing an appeal be extended to 20 August 2010 and the Application in class 3 purported to have been lodged on that date now be treated as having instituted the appeal in these proceedings.
3. The proceedings are stood over for directions to 1 April 2011 before the List Judge.