Morris v Valuer-General

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Morris v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 0015
PARTIES:	Roma Morris (Appellant)
v.
Valuer-General (Respondent)
FILE NO:	VLA369-10
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDINGS:	Interlocutory Application
DELIVERED ON:	25 March 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	10 December 2010
MEMBER:	His Honour, Mr WL Cochrane, Member
ORDERS:	Application Dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	Evidence – Tender of Report – Author Deceased – Purpose of Tender – Application Dismissed.
APPEARANCES:	Mr AC Barlow appeared for the Appellant. Mr SB Fynes-Clinton appeared for the Respondent.

Background

1. These are the written reasons provided for a decision which I delivered ex-tempore on the 10^th December last year in dismissing an application.

2. The appellant by her counsel Mr Barlow had made application to tender a report which had been previously tendered in other proceedings before this Court.

3. I indicated that I propose to reject the tender on the basis articulated by Mr Barlow and would provide reasons at a later date.

4. These are those reasons.

5. In this appeal against a valuation, an issue has arisen with respect that a tendering of an expert report by an arborist named Mulholland. 

6. The land, the subject of this present case filed in 2010 has been the subject of an appeal against a valuation on three previous occasions.[1] 

   [1]See Estate of LV Bressow (Deceased) v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources AV98-593, Morris v Department of Natural Resources and Mines 2003 QLC 0037 and Morris v Department of Natural Resources and  Water 2010 QLC 0021.

7. The issue was raised by counsel for the appellant on a review of the matter on 4 November 2010.  On that occasion counsel for the appellant told the Court that he wished to seek to tender the report of Mr John Mulholland (dec’d) who had given evidence before His Honour Member Smith in hearings in this Court in February 2010.  In November, I made Orders requiring the parties to file an outline of legal argument addressing the issue of whether the appellant should have leave to tender and rely upon an arborist report of Mr Mulholland.

8. Those submissions were provided to the Court and the matter was argued on 10 December 2010.

9. In the hearing before His Honour Member Smith in February 2010 argument had occurred about the tendering of the report of Mr Mulholland through a lay witness.  The tender was opposed by counsel for the Valuer-General but after argument His Honour was minded to allow the report to be tendered but cautioned that “issues of weight that the Court should give to Mr Mulholland’s report would be the subject of submissions by counsel at the conclusion of the hearing.”

10. His Honour gave reasons for his decision.[2]

    [2]            Morris v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2010] QLC 0021, at paragraph [24].

11. Further in his decision His Honour Member Smith indicated that he preferred the evidence of Mr Mulholland to that of a Mr Jason-Jay Fletcher called by the then respondent. 

12. In his decision the learned Member noted…