Muir v Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2007] QLC 69

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Muir v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2007] QLC 0069
PARTIES:	Sandra L & Ian D Muir (appellants)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (respondent)
FILE NOS.:	AV2006/0716, RV2006/0717, RV2006/0718
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Jurisdiction – Appeals against unimproved valuations
DELIVERED ON:	20 September 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Winton
MEMBER	Mr BR O'Connor, Judicial Registrar
ORDER:	The Court has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals.
CATCHWORDS:	Jurisdiction – Late filing of appeals – Whether reasonable excuse
APPEARANCES:	Mr I Muir for the appellants Mr W Isdale of Crown Law for the respondent

1. The issue for determination in these matters is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeals lodged six days after the due date.  Section 57 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA) allows for "reasonable excuse" as a cause for such delay. 

"57     Late Filing

(1)If a notice of appeal is filed in the Land Court registry after the time stated in section 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 lodgement advanced by the appellants falls within the term "reasonable excuse" as interpreted by the relevant authorities, particularly those since the introduction of s.57 of the VLA 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 case, 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. Mr Ian Muir, for the appellants, states in oral evidence before the Court that he sent the relevant appeal forms to the Department of Natural Resources and Water in Longreach on the 23^rd day of August 2006, well before the expiry date for lodgement of appeals (29^th day of August 2006).  No appeal forms were sent to the Land Court Registry in Brisbane at that time.  Two days prior to the expiry date, Mr Muir was left a message on his message-bank in Winton whereby the Longreach office contacted him enquiring whether he had sent necessary appeal forms to the Land Court in Brisbane.  Mr Muir was away in Townsville when he received that message and from there contacted the Department of Natural Resources and Water (Longreach office) to be told further about the requirement to lodge in Brisbane. 

2. He did not return to his Winton property until 29^th day of August and proceeded to send the necessary appeal forms to the Land Court Registry by post; such forms did not arrive in the registry until 4 September 2006. 

3. Mr Muir states that the Longreach Department of Natural Resources and Water pointed out to him the time limitations applicable for lodging and that he referred to the fact that, given his mail service, he would then not have sufficient time to get the appeal forms in Brisbane.  Longreach Department of Natural Resources and Water advised him to go ahead and send the appeal forms to Brisbane anyway.  Mr Muir concedes he could have faxed the necessary appeal forms from Townsville to the Land Court in Brisbane on either the 28^th or 29^th day of August and thus comply with the time limits; again he concedes he could have downloaded the required form or gone to where it could have been downloaded.  There was no suggestion by him that Department of Natural Resources and Water had purported to dispense any time limits required.  Mr Muir also concedes that he could have found out the address of the Land Court, the fax number and "that sort of thing" from the internet.  Mr Muir also concedes that he did not consider at that stage sending the relevant appeal forms by fax.

Decision

1. There are a number of reasons by reasonable excuse cannot be established in the current circumstances:

   ·        The appeal forms were not received by post in the registry until six days after the expiry time.  They were posted at Winton on 31^st day of August 2006.  There is no suggestion that there was any delay in the normal course of post.

   ·        The departmental officer from Department of Natural Resources and Water although not obliged to do so, did convey to the appellants the need to lodge in the Court – even if such message was only the day before the expiry date.  The necessary time limits were stressed to the appellant. 

   ·        There is no suggestion that the Department of Natural Resources and Water officer indicated that he was able to somehow dispense with the required time limitations. 

   ·        After the department warning to the appellants, it was still possible for the appeal forms to be faxed either from Townsville or from the Winton property to arrive in Brisbane before close of business on 29^th day of August 2006.

   ·        The correct filing instructions are clearly stated on the appeal form itself.

Order

1. The Court has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals.

BR O'CONNOR

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR