Saville v Council of the City of Gold Coast

[2024] QLC 12

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Saville v Council of the City of Gold Coast [2024] QLC 12

PARTIES:

Jacqueline Saville

(applicant)

v

Council of the City of Gold Coast

(respondent)

FILENO:

LGR087-24

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against categorisation decision

DELIVEREDON:

12 July 2024

DELIVEREDAT:

Brisbane

HEARDON:

4 July 2024

HEARDAT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

WA Isdale

ORDER:

1.     Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – where there is an appeal against a categorisation decision – where the time limit for an appeal had lapsed – whether the Court has jurisdiction

Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) s 92

APPEARANCES:

J Saville, the applicant, self-represented

JP Butt, solicitor, King & Company Solicitors for the respondent

1. The applicant has appealed against the respondent’s decision to categorise land at 59/28 Fortune Street Coomera as category “2T Residential 2”. The applicant contends that the correct categorisation should be “1T Residential 1”.

2. The applicant filed the Notice of Appeal in this Court on 12 April 2024.

1. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the letter to the applicant conveying its decision on the applicant’s objection to the categorisation decision shows that it is dated 27 May 2022 and would have been received around that date in the usual course of the post.

2. The respondent submits that as the Notice of Appeal was not filed until 12 April 2024, 686 days after the date of the decision, the appeal was not lodged in the required time allowed by the law. Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

3. The applicant did not dispute these dates but submitted that the matter must be given fair treatment.

4. The affidavit of Annemarie Freeman, sworn on 24 June 2024 is before the Court. Ms Freeman swears that she caused the letter dated 27 May 2022 to be posted to the applicant on 27 May 2022. This was not in dispute. Ms Freeman is the signatory of the letter and is an officer of the respondent.

5. The Court, in these matters, has the jurisdiction granted to it by section 92 of the Local Government Regulation 2012. It is there provided that the owner may appeal to this Court by filing an appeal notice within 42 days after the day when the owner received notice of the decision. The letter dated 27 May 2022 referred to this 42-day period within which an appeal to the Land Court could be made.

6. It is not in dispute that the notice of the decision was received by the owner not within 42 days before the appeal was filed but much earlier. It is unnecessary to establish exactly when it was received. On the evidence, it may be of the order of 686 days before the appeal was filed.

7. The appeal was not filed within the 42-day window allowed by the Regulation. This Court has no power to grant an extension of this period.

8. As the Notice of Appeal was not filed within the 42-day period this Court does not have jurisdiction granted to it to hear the appeal.

9. The Court has jurisdiction to decide if it has jurisdiction. On the facts of this case, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal so it must be dismissed on that ground.

Order

1. Appeal dismissed.

2