Bertini v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1993] QLC 136

I • L Re: Application for adjournment. Appeals under Valuation of Land Act 1944. AV91-1043 and AV91-1068. DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 22 October, 1993. Appeals (2) were filed in the Court in October and November, 1991 against values applied by the Chief Executive, Department of Lands to land in the ownership of Mr and Mrs JL Bertini of 12 The Cresent, Coorparoo. In the following month the appellants requested that the matters be not set down for hearing until they knew of the outcome of a request made to the Minister for Lands. The matters were stood over until the appellants advised the Court that they were ready to proceed. In the absence of hearing from the appellants the Court listed the matters for mention on 13 August, 1993. The Court was informed by Mr Bertini that the appellants were still seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act but believed that they would be ready to proceed not before October, 1993. Mr Bertini was directed to certain cases which may be relevant to the issue. Subsequently the matters were listed for hearing on 22 October, 1993. Application is made for an adjournment on grounds that Mr Bertini has not had the time to fully collate evidence of sales and of comparable properties, nor to inspect them. The Department objects to the adjournment on grounds that it is ready to proceed and that another adjournment will cause further disruption to the valuer's work program. It is submitted that the appellants have had ample time in which to prepare their case. Under the Valuation of Land Act an owner has a right to object against a [1993] QLC 136 -- 1 of 2 -- 2 valuation and to appeal a decision of the Chief Executive on the objection. This process has been taken in these cases. The appeals are against valuations of the area as at 31 March, 1989 and 31 March, 1990. Decisions on objection were given in 1991. Notwithstanding that the relevant land is rated on the applied values until such time as they are varied by the Court (if it so decides) the issue is rapidly becoming stale and not desirable in the public interest. "It is in the public interest that the appeal procedure prescribed by the Acts be followed, so that finality may be achieved and so that Crown and subject may know where they stand. It is contrary to the public interest that there be tardy applications such as this one, which may cause uncertainty · as to the revenue which the Crown should derive from its lands." (Re: APM Forests Pty Ltd (1979) 6 Q.L.C.R. 174 Dunn J at p. 178) This eminent authority is advanced as a note of warning. I may add that I see no distinction between the Crown or a local authority in the circumstances. I have considered the application and the reply. In the interests of ultimate fairness to the appellants an adjournment will be granted but on conditions designed to make the hearing of the matters as expeditious as possible. Accordingly the hearing of the above matters is adjourned to a date to be fixed following receipt of advice in writing by the Registrar from each party that the parties have made a full and complete exchange (which I order) of all evidence each party intends to put before the Court at the hearing. It is further ordered that such evidence be filed with the Registrar not less than 5 days before the commencement of the hearing. The Department is given liberty to apply for costs thrown away by the adjournment. (D M White) President of the Land Court. -- 2 of 2 --