Dhar v Valuer-General [2025] QLC 25

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Dhar v Valuer-General [2025] QLC 25 PARTIES: Neil Timothy Dhar (applicant) v Valuer-General (respondent) FILE NO: LVA078-25 PROCEEDING: Jurisdiction – appeal against annual valuation DELIVERED ON: 9 October 2025 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: Submissions closed 7 July 2025 HEARD AT: On the papers JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: GJ Smith ORDERS: 1. The application is refused. 2. The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – failure to appeal to Land Court in time – no affidavit evidence filed – actual cause of failure to lodge – no explanation or evidence pertaining to appeal period – whether reasonable excuse. Land Valuation Act 2010, s 155, s 157, s 158 AG Russell v The Crown (1992-93) QLCR 202, considered. Body Corporate for Parklands CTS and Anor v. Department of Natural Resources and Water 2009] QLC 65, considered. Hughes v Department Natural Resources and Water [2007] QLC 129, applied. Pascoe v The Nominal Defendant (Qld) No.2 [1964] Qd R, applied. APPEARANCES: Not applicable -- 1 of 8 -- 2 [1] In this matter the Court must, pursuant to s 157 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the LVA) exercise its discretion and determine whether there is jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal against a decision on objection issued by the Valuer-General (the respondent) on 12 March 2025. The 60-day period for filing the appeal expired at 4.30pm on 12 May 2025. [2] On 21 May 2025, correspondence was forwarded from the registry to Mr Dhar (the applicant) to advise that the appeal period had expired and that in the circumstances the Land Court will only have jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal if a “reasonable excuse” is established pursuant to s 158 of the LVA. Extracts of the legislation were attached with the correspondence. [3] The subject land is situated within the Whitsunday Regional Council local government area. Legislation [4] Section 157 (2) of the LVA provides: “(2) Subject to section 158, an appeal cannot be started after 60 days after the day of issue stated in the objection decision notice (the appeal period).” [5] Section 158 of the LVA provides: “158 - Late filing (1) This section applies if a valuation appeal notice is filed after the appeal period has ended. (2) The Land Court can hear the appeal only if— (a) the valuation appeal notice was filed 1 year or less after the objection decision notice was issued; and (b) the appellant satisfies the court there was a reasonable excuse for not filing the notice within the appeal period. Example of reasonable excuse— The notice of the valuer-general’s decision or the valuation appeal notice was lost or delayed in the ordinary course of post.” -- 2 of 8 -- 3 The conduct of the proceeding and evidence [6] The Court issued the following orders on 26 May 2025: 1. By 4.00 pm on Monday 9 June 2025, the appellant must file in the Land Court Registry, and serve on the Respondent written submissions and any affidavit materials regarding the issue of jurisdiction (late filing). 2. By 4.00 pm on Monday 23 June 2025, the respondent must file in the Land Court Registry, and serve on the appellant its written submissions and any affidavit materials regarding the issue of jurisdiction (late filing). 3. By 4.00 pm on Monday 7 July 2025, the appellant must file in the Land Court registry, and serve on the respondent, a reply if any. 4. Unless the parties otherwise request in writing, the case will be determined on the filed material, without an oral hearing not before Tuesday 8 July 2025 5. Any party may apply for further review by giving at least two (2) business days written notice to the Land Court registry and to the other parties of: a) the proposed date for review b) the reasons for the request; and c) the proposed directions [7] On 29 May 2025 a document referred to as an initial filing was emailed to the registry by the applicant. The document attaches correspondence from Singapore Airlines concerning flights undertaken by the applicant from Brisbane to Singapore on 20 February 2025 and return on 14 May 2025. [8] On 23 June 2025 submissions were filed on behalf of the respondent opposing a finding of jurisdiction [9] On 2 July 2025 an email referred to by the applicant as his filing was received by the registry. The applicant’s case – initial filing [10] The document initially filed by the applicant asserted the following matters: • As I was away from Australia during all of this period, the valuer-generals notice of rejection of valuation objection dated 20th March 2025 was delayed in receipt -- 3 of 8 -- 4 and I was subsequently able to prepare the response with files on my computer upon my return home on 14 May 2025. (The appeal was subsequently lodged with the Courts on 21 May 2025). • The original appeal deadline was 12th May 2025, and given I was not in Australia and able to prepare and file the appeal between the dates of objection rejection (20th March 2025) and appeal filing deadline (12th May 2025); and given that under LVA s 158 (2) (a) one year has not passed since the valuation objection notice was sent, I respectfully seek the Courts agreement to confirm jurisdiction on this matter. The respondent’s case [11] On behalf of the respondent, submissions addressing the issue of reasonable excuse were filed on 23 June 2025. A summary of the submissions is set below: • The applicant neither specified the purpose of his overseas travel, nor provided any details of alternative arrangements being in place to attend to matters while he was overseas. Further, there is no evidence that enquiries were made with the respondent regarding the status of his objection prior to his overseas travel. • The applicant lodged his objection online on 23 May 2024. He left in the contact details section an email address, which was his address for service. The applicant did not provide evidence on what arrangements he had made on emails received during this time. • The statements provided by the applicant seemed to suggest that he could not access files on his computer until his return to Australia. While it is understandable that this could cause some difficulties, a reasonable course of action would have been to prepare the documents in anticipation of the decision on objection being issues during his extended stay overseas or to have someone attend to the matter during his time abroad. There is no evidence that the applicant made arrangements regarding the documents he needed to lodge an appeal. • The Court should find that the applicant’s first reason, being travelling overseas during the appeal period does not amount to or would satisfy the Court of a reasonable excuse to file his appeal late under the LVA. -- 4 of 8 -- 5 • The Court should find that the applicant’s second reason, being having no access on his computer until his return to Australia, does not amount to or would satisfy the Court of a reasonable excuse to file his appeal late under the LVA. • Accordingly, the Court, after consideration of the authorities, written submissions and evidence in this appeal should conclude that a reasonable excuse pursuant to s 158 of the LVA has not been established and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal. The applicant’s second filing [12] On 2 July 2025, the applicant filed an email referred to as a filing. The relevant text of this document is set out below: • Para 22 of the respondents reply dated 23 June 2025 states that the appellant hadn’t specified the purpose of his overseas travel. While I am reticent to provide such private details of my health concerning my reasons for travelling from February 20th until May 14th, 2025, please see attached two memos from medical specialist doctors in Singapore. I went to Singapore between February 20th and May 14th 2025, to receive urgent medical attention. Despite the Medicare system in Australia, unfortunately I could not get a satisfactory diagnosis and treatment of these conditions in my local area, and upon friends recommendation, sought treatment from specialists in Singapore. I currently remain under the care of the Singapore doctors for these two conditions. • Para 22 of the respondents reply dated 23 June 2025 states the claimant hadn't "provided any details of alternative arrangements being in place to attend to matters while he was overseas”. While I’m reticent to disclose my personal care and security arrangements, please see a letter attached (file name, letter 020725) from my neighbour who looks after my house if I happen to be travelling, including checking on the house, the mailbox, and then alerting me (usually by WhatsApp) if there are any official letters which might require my immediate attention. Between 20th February 2025 and May 14th 2025 there were no such official letters because as it seems the valuer general office didn't send any written notification by letter to my home. -- 5 of 8 -- 6 I also believe it would be unreasonable for the respondent to suggest that I should give access to anyone to my personal emails and my home computer, even when away for an extended period. In any case the respondent in para 30 goes on to say, that being away from my home computer it was "understandable that it could cause some difficulties". • Para 22 of the respondents reply dated 23rd June 2025 states that "there is no evidence that enquiries were made with the respondent regarding the status of his objection prior to his overseas travel”. This is not true. prior to departing 20th February 2025 I logged into the qld.gov.au website from my home computer, and checked on the status of the objection which showed the objection status was still "under review". • Para 30 of the Respondents reply dated 23rd June 2025 states that a "reasonable course of action would have been to prepare the documents in anticipation of the decision on objection being issued during his extended stay overseas". I find this statement from the respondent unreasonable. How could any reasonable person anticipate the Valuer-Generals decision, or whether further information might be requested by the Valuer-General, or on what grounds any decision might be taken, and when any decision would be taken, if at all. • Para 30 of the respondents reply dated 23rd June 2025 states there is "no evidence that the applicant made arrangements regarding the documents he needed to lodge an appeal". This is not true. I downloaded the appeal form on to my computer before departing February 20th, 2025, but again could not complete the forms with the necessary details without understanding the basis of any decisions by the Valuer-General, and until accessing my home computer upon my return 14th May 2025. • While I understand that the courts do not necessarily recognise the concept of equal treatment of timelines between a claimant and a respondent, I would like to respectfully point out that it took the valuer general 222 days to respond to my land valuation objection which was submitted on 23rd May 2024, while it took me only 72 days to appeal the disallowed objection which was eventually disallowed on 12th March 2025. -- 6 of 8 -- 7 • I believe the courts might also take into account the number of days of my late lodgement - in this case the lodgement of the appeal was due May 12th 2025, and was it sent by email on 20th May 2025, and lodged May 21st 2025 which is only 7 business days late, which seems to be a relatively minor delay in submission, given the overall length of the objection and appeal process, which has been continuing now for about 334 days. • I also believe the courts might take into account the potential seriousness of the appellants case - I would like here to reassure the courts that I believe I have a very solid case for appealing this matter and having the land valuation amended. Consideration and conclusion [13] In determining the issue of jurisdiction pursuant to s 158 of the LVA, the Court must consider the relevant facts, circumstances, and merits on a case-by-case basis. The question of reasonable excuse must be considered objectively, and findings made on evidence that is logically probative1. Although provided for by the orders made on 26 May 2025, no affidavit evidence has been deposed or filed by the applicant. [14] The matters pressed by the applicant in his two filed documents have been considered in order to ascertain whether or not a reasonable excuse is established as required by s 158 of the LVA. [15] In Pascoe v The Nominal Defendant (Qld) No.2 No. 2 [1964] Qd R 373 at 378 Mansfield CJ observed: "What is to be determined is whether the applicant has shown any cause which can be deemed by the court to be a reasonable excuse. I think this means cause which a reasonable man would regard as an excuse, a cause consistent with are a reasonable standard of conduct, the kind of thing which might be expected to delay the giving of notice by a reasonable man."2 [16] In light of the preceding observations, it has been held that for a Court to conclude that a "reasonable excuse" exists for a delay, “there must first be identified an actual cause or causes of the delay”3. 1 Body Corporate for Parklands CTS and Anor v. Department of Natural Resources and Water 2009] QLC 65. 2 Pascoe v The Nominal Defendant (Qld) No.2 No. 2 [1964] Qd R 373 at 378. 3 Hughes v Department Natural Resources and Water [2007] QLC 129. -- 7 of 8 -- 8 [17] Attached to the applicants second filing are two memos provided by the applicants Singapore based doctors. The memos dated 24 June 2025 state a diagnosis and confirm that the applicant attended one appointment for treatment on 28 February 2025. No prognosis was detailed in either memo. [18] The applicant’s filings have been considered at length. The documents, although a mix of both contentions and asserted facts provide no detail or explanation of any actual event or circumstance that prevented some inquiry or action by him. Conclusion [19] The Court is satisfied on balance, that the cause of the notice of appeal not being lodged within the appeal period was the applicant’s failure to take any steps to check his email address for service during the period between 12 March 2025 and 12 May 2025. In the absence of any evidence or reasonable explanation for this failure, the Court is unable to make any finding of reasonable excuse as required by s 158 of the LVA. [20] The Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the proposed appeal. Orders 1. The application is refused. 2. The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. -- 8 of 8 --