Miracleside Pty Ltd v Valuer-General
[2025] QLC 8
•10 April 2025
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Miracleside Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2025] QLC 8
PARTIES: Miracleside Pty Ltd (applicant) v Valuer-General
(respondent)FILE NO: LVA437-24 PROCEEDING: Jurisdiction – appeal against annual land valuation DELIVERED ON: 10 April 2025 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: Submissions closed 7 February 2025 HEARD AT: On the papers JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: GJ Smith ORDERS: The application is refused.1.
The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.2.
CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – failure to appeal to Land Court in time – failure to lodge – whether reasonable excuse – where reasonable excuse not established – where jurisdiction found not to lie.
Land Valuation Act 2010, s155, s157, s158
AG Russell v TheCrown (1992-93) QLCR 202, applied.
Pascoe v The Nominal Defendant (Qld) No 2 [1964] Qd R373
APPEARANCES: Not applicable
Background
For this application the Court, pursuant to s 157 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the LVA) must determine if it has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal against a decision on objection issued by the Valuer-General on 15 August 2024. The subject property is located within the Sunshine Coast Regional Council and comprises a 3.867 ha parcel with an issued unimproved value of $370,000 as at 1 October 2023.
The proposed notice of appeal is recorded as having been filed on 14 November 2024. It is not in dispute that the final day for lodgement was 14 October 2024 at 4.30 pm. Where a notice of appeal is not filed within the appeal period, the Court will have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal, only if a “reasonable excuse” as required by s 158 of the LVA is established by the evidence.
On 18 November 2024 a Deputy-Registrar wrote to Miracleside Pty Ltd (the applicant) to advise that the 60-day period for the lodgement of the notice of appeal appeared to have expired on 14 October 2024. The letter enclosed an extract of s157 and s158 of the LVA and advised that the appeal could only be heard if the Court was satisfied that there was a reasonable excuse for not filing the notice within the appeal period.
On 3 December 2024, the Court made directions for filing affidavit material and submissions. The directions also provided for the application to be determined on the material filed without an oral hearing unless the parties requested otherwise.
Legislation
Section 157 (2) of the LVA provides:
“(2) Subject to section 158, an appeal cannot be started after 60 days after the day of issue stated in the objection decision notice (the appeal period).”
Section 158 of the LVA provides:
“158 - Late filing
(1) This section applies if a valuation appeal notice is filed after the appeal period has ended.
(2) The Land Court can hear the appeal only if—
(a) the valuation appeal notice was filed 1 year or less after the objection decision notice was issued; and
(b) the appellant satisfies the court there was a reasonable excuse for not filing the notice within the appeal period.
Example of reasonable excuse—The notice of the valuer-general’s decision or the valuation appeal notice was lost or delayed in the ordinary course of post.”
For completeness it is noted that s 158 of the LVA does not provide any power for the Court to extend the appeal period in anticipation of events or circumstances that might subsequently occasion a delay in lodging an appeal.
Evidence
On behalf of the applicant, an affidavit by the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Ross Little[1], was filed on 18 December 2024. The affidavit attached six exhibits comprising letters from Mr Little to the Land Court dated 15 December 2024, to the Department of Transport and Main Roads dated 4 June 2024 and to the Valuer-General dated 5 June 2024. Further exhibits included a letter from the Department of Main Roads to Mr Little dated 27 September 1996; two letters from the applicant’s then solicitors to the Department of Main Roads dated 23 February 2000 and 16 October 2000, a letter from the Department of Main Roads to the applicant’s solicitors dated 19 December 2000. The final exhibit included a two-page letter from a valuation firm dated 7 March 2013 to Mr Little and the applicant.
[1]Ex 1 Affidavit of Mr Little.
No affidavit or other evidence was filed on behalf of the Valuer-General.
Applicant’s submissions
Although no formal submission document has been filed on behalf of the applicant, the letter to the Land Court dated 15 December 2024[2], Mr Little makes the following points extracted below:
[2]Exhibit A to Ex 1.
· I had written to the Land Court before the document cut-off date asking for an extension of time to present some 200 pages of evidence regarding the multiple variations of values by:
(a) The valuer-general 2024 $ 370,000
(b) The Co-or-Gen 2009 (sic) $ 5,000
(c) MRD 1999 $ 60,000
(d) Energex paid $27,000 for 15 000 sqm of easement value unknown.
· There has been deliberate destruction, deceit and in my view fraud occurring.
· When I wrote to the Court asking for an extension, I expected to present some 200 pages of evidence, on reflection there are probably more than 600 pages from 30 or more Senior Public Servants, Ministers and highly qualified professionals if I have to explain all of the deceit etc.
· It would be impossible to assemble all the evidence in such a short time given the conditions I'm working under. The Co-Ordinator General’s (DIP) is Queensland’s most powerful State Government Office and must be listened to.
· I'm tabling two letters that may explain the amount of documents needed to prove the whole case. Annex B & C (MRD & VG) The MRD letter was written in about 2019 the computer accidentally re dated it.
· I'm tabling five letters linking the Minister's letter of promise to the taking of the resumption which reflects the real value of the land should the Court rule that the valuation is subject to legal access being returned to the land and an independent view on the matters (letters D,E,F,G & H).
· It’s impossible to complete the evidence within Court time constraint.
· This matter needs to go to the court that can order that the resumptions are to be done again in a legally compliant matter so that the Valuer-General assessment will be correct. As it stands now the site is a worthless liability.
Respondent’s submissions
A summary of the Valuer-General’s submission is set out in the following points:
· As the applicant has not established a reasonable excuse for not filing the appeal notice within the statutory appeal period, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.
· As no representations were made to the applicant about any change in time limits or how to file the material, there is no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.
· The applicant was aware of the date that the appeal had to be filed and did not file it by the deadline. The LVA sets this timeline to balance the need for efficiency in the Court process and appellants having sufficient time to file material. This excuse is not reasonable and would be an undesirable precedent.
· The applicant did not do everything a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances to have the appeal filed on time and the reason for the delay was not such that it was beyond the control of the applicant.
Matters in reply by the applicant
A summary of the relevant matters raised in reply by Mr Little on behalf of the applicant is set out below:
· Given the amount of evidence required it was necessary to allow the time taken.
· The applicant wrote to the Land Court on 20 August 2024 applying for an Appeal Form 3 in a timely manner.
· Wrote to a Land Court Deputy-Registrar explaining that the evidence being compiled is substantial, indisputable and must be recognised. The letter also asks for an extension of time till January 2025. The extension has never been denied.
· From August 2024 through to filing date there were multiple phone calls and meetings between the applicant and the Land Court in a timely manner.
· On 30 October 2024 the applicant wrote to the Land Court Senior-Registrar providing evidence etc.
Conclusion
A finding of reasonable excuse requires cogent evidence of facts and circumstances that demonstrate how that cause or excuse operated to preclude the filing of the notice of appeal within the 60-day period. Without such evidence, a Court cannot evaluate any chain of events or factual basis upon which a reasonable excuse might be based.
The question of reasonable excuse was considered in Pascoe v The Nominal Defendant (Qld) No 2[3] with Mansfield CJ stating as follows:
“What is to be determined is whether the applicant has shown any cause which can be deemed by the court to be a reasonable excuse. I think this means a cause which a reasonable person would regard as an excuse, a cause consistent with a reasonable standard of conduct, the kind of thing which might be expected to delay the giving of notice by a reasonable person”.[4]
[3][1964] Qd R 373.
[4][1964] Qd R 373 at 378.
The Land Appeal Court in AG Russell v The Crown[5], had this to say regarding reasonable excuse:
“Whilst it has been laid down that each case depends on its own particular facts, it is clear from the above authorities that the reasonable cause or explanation must be substantial. The test is an objective one. It is of little use for an appellant for example, merely to say without more that he did not know of the time limitation, or that he had overlooked duly complying with the prescribed requirements of s.44(11)(a) and (b), or that he believed that what he did amounted to due compliance. The Land Appeal Court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable cause or explanation.”[6]
[5][1992] 14 QLCR 202.
[6][1992] 14 QLCR 202 at 204.
The evidence and materials before the Court in support of this application provide limited detail as to why between 200 to 600 documents were required in order to complete the notice of appeal; a document that does not have any requirement to concurrently provide the evidence that might be relied upon at the subsequent hearing of the appeal. The evidence does not, on balance, demonstrate any reasonable excuse or cause, or explain how the absence of the documents prevented the filing of the notice as required by s 157 (2) of the LVA.
The Court is not satisfied that any reasonable excuse is established on behalf of the applicant and therefore must find that the there is no jurisdiction to hear and determine the proposed appeal.
Orders
The application is refused.1.
The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.2.
0
0
1