Stent-Smith v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 41

[1995] QLC 41

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

26 May 1995

Re:     Appeal against a rental valuation
  Dalrymple Shire Council.
  RV94-123.

AD and LC Stent-Smith
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

Valuation of Land Act 1944

J U R I S D I C T I O N

(Hearing at Charters Towers)

In this matter a question of the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the appeal on its merits has been raised for reasons that the grounds stated in the notice of appeal were not of sufficient particularity to comply with the provisions of the Act.
           Under the Act, an appellant is required in the notice of appeal to state the grounds of appeal.  The relevant section (s.45) provides further that an appellant is limited to the grounds stated and that the burden of proving any and every such ground is upon the lessee/appellant.
           In the subject case, under the heading "Grounds of Appeal", the notice of appeal reads:

(1)Refer attached letter dated 21 January 1994

(2)Refer attached letter dated 26 August 1993.

Copies of the aforesaid letters were annexed to the notice of appeal.  The letter of 26 August 1993 constituted an objection to the valuation, whilst the second letter furthered the grounds of objection and made specific reference to relativity of the subject land with other leasehold land and sales.  The Registrar, having reasons to believe the grounds were deficient, issued a requisition under the provisions of s.58 of the Act.  The appellants did not respond.  In the hearing of the matter Mr AD Stent-Smith submitted that a response was unnecessary as in his submission the notice of appeal was not defective.
           Having perused the authorities cited to me by Mr Paterson, Counsel for the Chief Executive, I have concluded that this case can be distinguished.  In particular, I note that in Bidner v. The Valuer-General (1992) 14 QLCR 88, the appellant, although relying on the grounds of his objection for the purposes of the appeal, failed to restate those grounds in the notice of appeal, nor was a copy of the notice of objection appended to it. Had that been done, the documents could have been read together. In this case the grounds which formed the grounds of objection were annexed to the notice of appeal and as such may be read with the notice of appeal. They are of sufficient particularity, in my opinion, to serve notice on the Chief Executive of the matters which will be relied upon by the appellant when prosecuting the appeal and were, in fact, accepted for the purposes of determining the objection.
           Accordingly, I find that the appeal is not defective and that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case on its merits.  The matter will accordingly be placed on the list of cases awaiting hearing and determination.

President of the Land Court