Smith v Valuer-General

Case

[2025] QLC 28

14 November 2025


LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Smith v Valuer-General [2025] QLC 28
PARTIES: Bruce John Smith
(applicant)
v
Valuer-General
(respondent)
FILE NO: LVA296-25
PROCEEDING: Jurisdiction – appeal against annual valuation
DELIVERED ON: 14 November 2025
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: Submissions closed 13 November 2025
HEARD AT: On the papers
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:

GJ Smith

ORDER: The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.
CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS – TIME FOR SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS OR RENEWAL – where the appellant failed to appeal to the Land Court in time –where the Notice of Appeal was lost or delayed in the post– whether there was a reasonable excuse for the failure to lodge the appeal in time – where the Court found there was a reasonable excuse, and that it therefore had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Land Valuation Act 2010, s 155, s 157, s 158

APPEARANCES: Not applicable
  1. This application requires the Court to decide, pursuant to s 157 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the LVA) if jurisdiction is established to hear and determine an appeal against an annual valuation of land situated at Annerley within the Brisbane City Council local government area. 

  1. A notice of decision on objection was issued by the respondent on 30 July 2025, a Notice of Appeal in response to that decision was filed on 1 October 2025, 1 day after the 60-day appeal period expired.

  1. On 2 October 2025, a Deputy Registrar wrote to the applicant to advise of the delay and to confirm that the Court will only have jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal, if “reasonable excuse” as required by s 158 of the LVA is demonstrated. Later that day the court issued directions orders for the filing of affidavit evidence and submissions by the parties.

Legislation

  1. 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).”

  1. 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.”

Evidence

  1. In an affidavit filed on 14 October 2025, the applicant deposes to forwarding the Notice of Appeal by registered post to the registry on 23 September 2025. A copy of a registered post lodgement receipt dated 23 September 2025 is exhibited as document 1 to that affidavit.  No further evidence is relied upon by the applicant.

  1. On 29 October 2025 an affidavit of Ms Marlena Litchfield, Senior Lawyer, In-house Legal was filed on behalf of the respondent. Exhibit A to that affidavit sets out the results of an online tracking search undertaken in respect of the tracking number for the registered post lodgement receipt referred to in the applicant’s affidavit.

Submissions

  1. The applicant’s affidavit includes a general contention that his excuse for not filing the Notice of Appeal within the appeal period was due to the appeal document being delayed in the ordinary course of post. On behalf of the respondent, it is contended that the Court should be satisfied that the delay for filing the appeal was due to a delay in the ordinary course of post and that a finding of reasonable excuse is established as required by s.158 (2) of the LVA.

Conclusion

  1. Based on the affidavit materials filed by the parties the Court is satisfied that the Notice of Appeal was delayed in the ordinary course of post and that reasonable excuse for the delay is established in the circumstances.

Order

The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1