Will v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines - [2002] QLC 83

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: F Will & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2002] QLC 83

PARTIES: Francis and Wilma C Will
(applicants)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

(respondent)

FILE NO/S: AV2002/0196

DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING: Appeal under s.57(1) and (2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944

DELIVERED ON: 18 October 2002.

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: Dr NG Divett

ORDER: The Court finds that there is a reasonable excuse for the delay in lodging the appeal within the meaning of the Act. The Court therefore finds that this Court does have jurisdiction to hear the merits of the matter, and the appeal should proceed.

CATCHWORDS: Practice and procedures – satisfying jurisdiction – reasonable excuse – reliance upon agent – Valuation of Land Act.

APPEARANCES: Mrs W Will for the appellants.
Ms R Trigge, Principal Legal Officer for the respondent.

Background:

This matter relates to land at 103 Raeburn Street, Manly and described as Lot 2 on RP61133, Parish of Tingalpa. The subject land is developed as a single dwelling house and has been valued for that purpose under s.17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act). The matter before the Court relates to the preliminary question of whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the matter in respect of an appeal against an annual valuation at 1 October 2001. Mrs Will represented the appellants, and Ms R Trigge, Principal Legal Officer, represented the respondent. Ms Trigge advised that the respondent made no representations on the matter, relying on the Court’s decision.

The facts:

The Chief Executive issued a valuation of the subject land on 25 February 2002. Following an objection lodged on 22 March 2002, the Chief Executive confirmed that the unimproved value was $215,000 on 4 April 2002. That decision was subsequently issued to the appellant on 28 May 2002.
The appellants signed a Notice of Appeal on 2 July 2002, and arranged to dispatch that Notice of Appeal through a friend. The friend confirmed that the Notice of Appeal was posted to this Court at the Wynnum West Plaza Shopping Centre on 2^nd or 3^rd July 2002. The reason for the use of a third party to post the notice of appeal is explained later. The appellants’ Notice of Appeal claims that the unimproved value should more properly be $110,000. That Notice of Appeal was postmarked by Australia Post at its Underwood Mail Centre at 6 pm on 15 July 2002, and received by the Registrar of this Court on 16 July 2002.
On 16 July 2002 the Registrar of the Land Court notified the appellants that the appeal appeared to have been lodged after the statutory period of 42 days allowed for an appeal under s.45(2) of the Act, which was 9 July 2002. The Registrar advised that such an appeal did not lie, unless the appellant was able to satisfy the requirements of…

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.

Continue reading Will v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and...

Details

AGLC: Will v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2002] QLC 83
Case: [2002] QLC 83
Decision Date: 18 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Francis and Wilma Will have appealed to the Land Court of Queensland against the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, regarding the valuation of their property. The appellants challenge the valuation of their property, arguing that the unimproved value should be $110,000 rather than the $215,000 assessed by the Chief Executive. The court must decide if it has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal, given that the notice of appeal was lodged after the statutory 42-day period stipulated by section 45(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The appellants claim that there is a reasonable excuse for the delay in lodging the appeal.

The court considered the appellants' circumstances, including their advanced age and severe illnesses, which necessitated reliance on a third party to post the notice of appeal. Mrs Will, cognisant of the need to lodge the appeal within the timeframe, signed the notice on 2 July 2002 and arranged for her friend to post it on 2nd or 3rd July 2002. Despite the friend's failure to provide a statutory declaration, the court found that Mrs Will did all she could under the circumstances to ensure the notice was sent on time. The court noted that reliance on an agent, in this case, the friend, is permissible, and the delay was not due to actions by the appellants or their lawyers. The respondent did not argue against the appellants' explanation, which supported the court's conclusion that a reasonable excuse existed.

Consequently, the court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal. The court found that the appellants had acted reasonably by entrusting their friend with posting the notice and that the friend's actions, though not perfectly executed, did not constitute a failure on the part of the appellants. The court allowed the appeal to proceed, emphasising that the appellants had done all that could reasonably be expected of them.

The court's final order was that the Land Court of Queensland had jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal against the Chief Executive's valuation of the appellants' property.

Orders