Stubberfield v The Valuer-General - [1993] QLAC 34

[1994] QLAC 34

LAND APPEAL COURT

BRISBANE

5 November 1993

Re: Appeal against determination of the Valuer-General
Division of Kedron AV89-508
John R Stubberfield and Dorothy May Stubberfield

v

The Valuer-General

DECISION ON JURISDICTION

The appellants, JR and DM Stubberfield, have appealed to the Land Appeal Court against a decision of the Land Court dismissing their appeal against the determination of the Valuer-General that the unimproved value of Subdivision 11 of Portion 9, parish of Nundah, (the "subject land") as at 31 March 1988 was $75,000. The appellants estimate that the unimproved value of the subject land at that date was $50,000.

As a preliminary issue, the appellants submitted that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine their appeal, and that, for the same reason, the Land Court also lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine their appeal.

The basis for this submission is that there was no decision against which an appeal could be brought because the Valuer-General's decision on the appellants' objection to the valuation was given after the expiration of the period specified in the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the "Act") for making the decision.

The appellants also made it clear that, so far as they are concerned, any decision in this case would have implications for other decisions in earlier years concerning the valuation of the subject land. They are seeking, by one means or another, to have a Court or the respondent review decisions of the Valuer-General concerning the valuation of the subject land in 1985 and 1986. Those valuations are not the subject of these proceedings and we express no opinion with respect to them.

Although the question concerning jurisdiction has been raised at a relatively late stage in the appeal process, the fact that it has not been raised or considered previously does not relieve this Court of the obligation to deal with it in the exercise of the Court's power to determine whether it has jurisdiction (see Re Liability to Forfeiture - Perpetual Lease Selection No 6337, Rockhampton District (1956) 26 CLLR 27 at 31; Beedell Farms and

Grazing Pty Ltd v The Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 109).

The matter is one of statutory interpretation and must be resolved by reference to the relevant provisions of the Act under which the annual valuation of the subject land was made in 1988. Part IVA of the Act, which deals with annual valuations of land, was inserted in 1985. It contains the sections applicable to these proceedings. Those provisions have since been amended, but it is necessary to consider them in the form in which they were at all relevant dates. They are summarised as follows:

(a)Section 16B of the Act provided for the Valuer-General to make annually a valuation of all lands in the Area. An annual valuation shall be made at a date to be fixed by the Valuer-General in respect of that annual valuation.

(b)Sections 16E and 16F of the Act provided that the Valuer-General shall make particulars of each…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stubberfield v The Valuer-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1993] QLAC 34
Decision Date: 5 November 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Stubberfield v The Valuer-General concerns a dispute over the valuation of a parcel of land in Brisbane. The appellants, John R and Dorothy May Stubberfield, contested the Valuer-General's determination of the unimproved value of their property as at March 31, 1988. The Valuer-General had valued the land at $75,000, while the appellants believed the value to be $50,000. The main legal issue before the court was whether the Valuer-General's decision, made beyond the statutory deadline, was null and void, and if so, whether the Land Appeal Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court began by examining the statutory framework governing the annual valuation of land, specifically Part IVA of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The court noted that the Valuer-General had not complied with the 60-day period within which to consider objections and issue a decision as required by section 16H of the Act. Despite this non-compliance, the court had to determine whether this failure rendered the decision invalid.

In reaching its decision, the court applied principles of statutory interpretation, focusing on the language of the statute, the purpose of the Act, and the legislative history. The court found that the purpose of the Act was to facilitate the assessment and levying of taxes, with the objection and appeal process being the only means for a valuation to be reassessed. The court considered that the strict compliance with time limits by landowners was a penalty for failing to act within the statutory period, but there was no such penalty for the Valuer-General.

Furthermore, the court examined the legislative history, including the Second Reading Speech by the relevant Minister, which highlighted the desire for objections and appeals to be determined within the relevant valuation period. The court also took into account the 1991 amendment to section 16H, which removed the arbitrary 60-day limit and replaced it with a more flexible "as soon as is reasonably practicable" requirement.

The court concluded that the time limit in section 16H was directory, not mandatory, meaning that the Valuer-General's failure to comply with the deadline did not render the decision null and void. The court held that the Land Appeal Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the appellants' appeal against the Valuer-General's decision on the valuation of their property.

Orders