Cardwell Properties Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2001] QLC 114

LAND COURT BRISBANE 12 OCTOBER 2001 Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation Valuation of Land Act 1944 Property ID: 40127548 Local Government: Cardwell (AV2001/0547) Cardwell Properties Pty Ltd v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines DECISION ON JURISDICTION Background: (1) This matter relates to land at 43 Royal Palm Avenue, Cardwell and described as Lot 8 on SP 132625, Parish of Ellerbeck. The subject land is vacant urban land and has an area of 941 m². 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 2000 under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. At the request of the parties the matter was decided on the papers. The Facts: (2) The Chief Executive issued a valuation of the subject land on 26 February 2001. Following an objection, the Chief Executive confirmed that the unimproved value was $100,000 on 1 July 2001. The appellant's agent appealed on 14 August 2001 claiming the unimproved value should be $50,000. (3) On 21 August 2001 the Registrar of the Land Court notified the appellant's agent 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 12 August 2001. The Registrar advised that such an appeal did not lie, unless the appellant was able to satisfy the requirements of s.57(1) and s.57(2), copies of which were supplied to the appellant's agent for information. (4) On 22 August 2001 the appellant's agent responded to the Registrar advising that the appellant would seek to satisfy the Court that there was a reasonable excuse for filing the notice after the prescribed time, confirming their previous advice to that effect of 14 August 2001. On 3 September 2001 the Registrar acknowledged receipt of the response from the appellant's agent, advising that the matter would be set down [2001] QLC 114 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 for hearing. A Court Notice dated 24 September 2001 set down a hearing on jurisdiction for 12 October 2001. (5) On 5 October 2001 the respondent advised the Registrar that although the decision on objection in this case did bear the date of 1 July 2001, it did not in fact issue until at least 9 July 2001. The respondent further advised that, in view of the above circumstances, he agreed that the matter could be resolved by the Court on the papers. On 5 October 2001 the agent for the appellant also requested such an approach. (6) In his advice to the Registrar of 14 August 2001 the appellant's agent had noted that the decision on objection had not been received until the week commencing 16 July 2001. It had been the agent's verbal advice from officers of the respondent, that notices dated 1 July 2001 were delayed due to administrative problems, which was consistent with the formal advice now supplied to the Registrar. (7) The matter of a delay in posting out a notice on a decision on objection was addressed in WM & TJ Fischer v. The Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 129. In that matter there had been a delay of 10 days between the date of the notice and its receipt by the appellants through the ordinary course of post. There was no dispute that the statutory period runs from the date of issue (now 42 days), but rather that the extended delay in receiving the notice caused hardship to the appellants. (8) In the circumstances of that case the Land Appeal Court said at p.135: " On a literal reading of s.21(3)(A)(a)(i) there is no reason why undue delay in the transmission of mail from the Valuer-General to the owner cannot cause a failure to institute the appeal in time. It may not be as obvious an instance as that where undue delay in the mail makes the difference between the Registrar receiving it in time or out of time. However we would hold that undue delay in the mail is capable of causing a failure to institute the appeal within time whether it occurs at the beginning of the appeal period or the end of it, and whether it relates to postage from Valuer-General to owner or owner to the Court." (9) In the current matter there is no argument that there were any delays in the ordinary course of post, but only that the decision had not issued from the respondent until at least 9 July 2001. As a consequence of those delays in the computerised processing arrangements of the respondent, the effective date for commencement of the 42-day period in which to appeal should have commenced from 9 July 2001, which then expires on 20 August 2001. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 (10) On the evidence before me I find that there is a reasonable excuse for the delay in lodging the appeal within the meaning of the Act. I therefore find that this Court does have jurisdiction to hear the merits of the matter, and the appeal should proceed. NG DIVETT MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 3 of 3 --