Trenkner v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water

[2006] QLC 27

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Trenkner v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water [2006] QLC 27
PARTIES:	Jean M Trenkner (appellant)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water (respondent)
FILE NOS:	AV2005/1919
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Jurisdiction – Appeal against Unimproved Valuation.
DELIVERED ON:	11 May 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	Mr PA Smith
ORDERS:	The Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the subject matter.
CATCHWORDS:	Jurisdiction – Late filing of appeal – Whether reasonable excuse.
APPEARANCES:	Mrs Trenkner, appellant, in person Mr R Paterson for the respondent.

1. The issue for determination in this matter is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal lodged after the due date. Section 57 of the Valuation of Land Act1944  allows for "reasonable excuse" as a cause for such delay:

   "57.(1)  If a notice of appeal is filed in the Land Court registry after the time stated in s.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 cases, particularly those since the introduction of s.57 as amended in 2000.

2. 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 cause, 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. At the hearing, Mrs Trenkner gave evidence.  The respondent did not call any evidence.

2. There is common ground between the parties on most issues.  I find the relevant facts as follows:

   ·    The decision on objection was issued on 20 September 2005.

   ·    On 20 October 2005, the appellant posted a notice of appeal, together with a covering letter, to the respondent.

   ·    The notice of appeal was received by the respondent on 23 October 2005.

   ·    The 42 day time period for lodging an appeal with the Land Court expired on 1 November 2005.

   ·    On 12 December 2005, the appellant completed a duplicate notice of appeal, which was received by the Land Court on 13 December 2005.

   ·    The appellant’s husband suffers from Alzheimer’s disease.  His condition has been progressively worsening for 15 years.  The appellant is his full time carer.

   ·    The appellant is now 77…