Dethlefs v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1995] QLC 167

[1995] QLC 167 ; . Re : Appeal against a valuation. Maroochy Local Government (V93-646) John C and Jennifer L Dethlefs V. Chief Executive, Department of Lands APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT LAND COURT, BRISBANE 28 April 1995 This is an application for an adjournment of the hearing of an appeal against the determination of the Chief Executive, Department of Lands of the unimproved value of certain land owned by the appellants John C and Jennifer L Dethlefs situated at 214 Broadwater Avenue, Maroochydore. The application is opposed by the Chief Executive. In September 1993 a decision was made by the Chief Executive on an objection made by the appellants to the valuation of the subject land for the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 as at 31 March 1992. The objection was allowed and the unimproved value of the subject land was determined at $42,000 in lieu of $44,000. The appellants duly lodged an appeal against the determination. The appeal was filed in Court on 8 October 1993. Notice was given by the Court that the matter would be called on for hearing before the Land Court at Maroochydore on 4 May 1994 that being the next sittings of the Court at Maroochydore following the date of lodgment of the appeal. The appellants requested an adjournment on grounds that they would be absent from the State from 18.4.94 to 20.12.94 and asked if possible for a hearing subsequent to 20.12.94 and before 31.1.95. The Chief Executive raised no objection to the adjournment. The Chief Executive, correctly, did not speak about the request for a possible hearing date within the period mentioned. The matter was listed for hearing at the current sittings of the Court at Maroochydore commencing on 18 April 1995. Notice to this effect was given the appellants on 22 February 1995. On 13 April (the day preceding Good Friday) -- 1 of 3 -- 2 application was received in the Registry in writing posted from Port Pirie, South Australia seeking a further adjournment of the matter on grounds that the appellants were absent from the State and may be available after July 1995. The first appellant stated in the application that "I am not well enough to be back in Queensland for some time." The Chief Executive who was ready to proceed in the matter opposes the application on grounds going to finality. His submission briefly stated is that the Department cannot be allowed to be kept "dangling on a string" at the convenience of the appellants. I find the following matters of relevance in considering the import of the matter in dispute. The valuation was made as at 31 March 1992. It became effective in 1993. The valuation issued in the sum of $44 ,000 and on objection was reduced to $42,000 . The appellants' value is $37 ,000. Annual valuations subsequent to that date have been made. There is/are no appeal/s in Court in respect of those annual valuations. Whilst the Department exercised a degree of restraint and co-operation in the first application for an adjournment there are in my opinion no grounds for it to .continue such perseverance and courtesy. It is in the interests of parties, particularly in my opinion in respect of annual valuations , that appeals be brought to a head and be finalised, except in special circumstances , at the first sittings of the Court for which the matters are set down. The Court cannot and does not gazette special sittings to suit the convenience of particular appellants. An appellant who is dilatory in prosecuting an appeal can in due course expect to be met with the submission which is put before the Court by the Chief Executive in this matter. In this case the appellants have provided sketchy grounds for an adjournment. No medical evidence is tendered in support of the condition of the first appellant nor is there evidence before the Court as to why the appellants have not briefed an agent or a solicitor to handle the case for them . In consideration of all the circumstances I find that I should accede to the submission of the Chief Executive. If the application for the adjournment is refused, it follows that the appeal should then be struck out for want of prosecution . However, as the appellants were not in Court to hear the submissions of the Chief Executive, the striking out of the case will be deferred for a period of one month from the date of this decision in -- 2 of 3 -- 3 which time the appellants are granted leave to make application in writing to the Registrar with appropriate supporting reasons for the Court to restore the matter to the list of cases awaiting hearing and determination. In the absence of such application being made within the period mentioned the matter will be automatically struck off the list. (signed) OM WHITE President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --