Copley & Anor v Valuer-General [2020] QLC 7

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: DIVISION: PROCEEDING: DELIVERED ON: DELIVERED AT: HEARD ON: HEARD AT: JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: ORDER: CATCHWORDS: Copley & Anor v Valuer-General [2020] QLC 7 Denise Copley (appellant) Gregory Copley (appellant) v Valuer-General (respondent) LVA675-19 General Division Appeal against objection decision on a valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010 Orders delivered 5 November 2019 Reasons delivered 6 February 2020 Brisbane On the papers Heard on the papers GJ Smith The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS – TIME FOR SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS OR RENEWAL – where the appellant failed to appeal to the Land Court in time –where the Notice of Appeal was lost or delayed in the post– whether there was a reasonable excuse for the failure to lodge the appeal in time – where the Court found there was a reasonable excuse, and that it therefore had jurisdiction to hear the appeal -- 1 of 4 -- 2 Land Valuation Act 2010, s 155, s 157, s 158 ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2012] QLC 48, cited APPEARANCES: Not applicable [1] In this matter, the Court must determine if it has jurisdiction pursuant to s 157 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the LVA) to hear and determine an appeal against an annual valuation as at 1 October 2018 of land located at North Maclean within the Logan City Council local government area. [2] The respondent issued an objection decision notice in respect of the subject property 3 July 2019. A Notice of Appeal1 in respect of this decision was filed in the Land Court registry on Tuesday 3 September 2019, 1 day after the expiry of the appeal period.2 Accordingly, the Court will only have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal if a “reasonable excuse”— as required by s 158 of the LVA — is established. [3] On 10 September 2019, a Deputy Registrar wrote to the applicants to advise that the Court could not hear the proposed appeal unless a reasonable excuse was established for not filing the Notice of Appeal within the appeal period. [4] By email correspondence dated 3 October 2019,3 Mr Gregory Copley provided tracking information from Australia Post which indicates that the Notice of Appeal would ordinarily have been received in the Land Court registry on Monday 2 September 2019. [5] On 25 October 2019, the registry received email correspondence from In- House Legal, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy indicating that the Department did not oppose the Court finding that jurisdiction was established. Notwithstanding this advice, the existence of a reasonable excuse must still be established on the balance of probabilities in respect of the failure to lodge the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed period.4 [6] On 5 November 2019, after considering the evidence, I determined the issue of jurisdiction without formal reasons in order to allow a Preliminary Conference to be 1 Ex 1. 2 Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 38. 3 Ex 2. 4 ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2012] QLC 48 [5]. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 scheduled immediately. These reasons concern this initial finding and order in respect of jurisdiction. Legislation [7] 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).” [8] 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.” Evidence [9] The main evidence provided to the Court by the applicants comprises the email correspondence referred to in paragraph [4] and admitted as Exhibit 2. No evidence was called by or on behalf of the respondent. Submissions [10] Neither party made any formal submissions to the Court, although a legal representative on behalf of the respondent advised that a finding of jurisdiction was not opposed. Conclusion [11] An example of reasonable excuse set out in 158 of the LVA provides: “The notice of the Valuer-General’s decision or the valuation appeal notice was lost or delayed in the ordinary course of post.” -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [12] On the basis of the information provided by Mr Copley in Exhibit 2, I am satisfied that the proposed Notice of Appeal was delayed in the ordinary course of post and am therefore satisfied that reasonable excuse is established in the circumstances. Order: The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal. -- 4 of 4 --