Wilson v Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2006] QLC 78

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Wilson & Ors v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2006] QLC 78
PARTIES:	Graham MG Wilson;  and Ors (appellants)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (respondent)
FILE NOS.:	AV2005/1201; AV2005/1202; AV2005/1203; AV2005/1204 and AV2005/1205
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Jurisdiction – Appeals against unimproved valuations
DELIVERED ON:	18 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Kingaroy
MEMBER	Mr BR O'Connor, Judicial Registrar
ORDER:	The Court has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals.
CATCHWORDS:	Jurisdiction – Late filing of appeals – Whether reasonable excuse
APPEARANCES:	Mr GMG Wilson for the appellants Mr M Heather, (Acting Principal Lawyer, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources and Water) for the respondent

1. The issue for determination in these matters is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeals lodged one day after the due date.  Section 57 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA) allows for "reasonable excuse" as a cause for such delay. 

"57     Late Filing

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

1. 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 case, 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. Mr Graham Wilson representing all landowners in these appeals states in oral evidence before the Court that he lodged the appeal forms with the Land Court at the Kingaroy Office of the Department of Natural Resources and Water.  The Department in turn forwarded these forms to the Land Court registry in Brisbane on the same date arriving with the registry the following day.  As Mr Wilson did not deliver the appeal forms to the Department at the Kingaroy Office until the 42^nd day, they were a day late in arriving at the Brisbane registry. 

2. Mr Wilson claims to have followed this practice on a prior occasion with the Department forwarding necessary Court forms to the Brisbane registry. 

3. There was no undertaking by departmental officers to fax the appeal forms so that they would reach the registry on the 42^nd day.  Also there was no suggestion that Mr Wilson was led to believe that the Department was a de facto agency for the Land Court.  He recognised that the Court and the Department were two separate entities. 

4. Mr Heather, Counsel for the Department, stressed the appeal forms were not lodged in the Department until the 42^nd day and thus could not have arrived in the Court registry, in normal course of post, until the following day (and thus out of time).  There was no evidence that the forms had been faxed on an earlier occasion by the Department to the Court registry.  The Department was merely being helpful in forwarding the forms to the registry.

5. Mr Heather also stated that it was not sufficient compliance with the Valuation of Land Act requirements by having the appeal forms in the mail on the 42^nd day.  They must be received in the registry by such a time.  He also pointed to the clear instructions on the back of the appeal forms advising where the forms were to be sent.

Decision

There are a number of reasons why reasonable excuse cannot be established in the current circumstances. 

·    The forms were not lodged with the Department in Kingaroy until the 42^nd day.  Although appeal forms had been previously forwarded by the Department to the Land Court registry in Brisbane for the landowners, there was no obligation on the Department to do so. 

·    The Department was under no obligation to point out to the landowners the time limits involved. 

·    There was no suggestion of any claim made by the departmental staff to Mr Wilson that lodgement of the appeal forms with the Department would satisfy the requirements to lodge with the Land Court. 

·    The fact that the forms were in the mail on the 42^nd day does not satisfy the Valuation of Land Act requirements.

·    The correct filing instructions are clearly stated on the appeal form itself.  

Order

The Court has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals. 

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR