Coonan v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 208 (1991) 13 QLCR 333

Re: Appeals against determinations of Valuer-General - Brisbane City Council. AV91-53/54. Jessie Coonan V. The Valuer-General (Valuation of Land Act) DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 13th December, 1991 There are two appeals before the Court signed by the appellant, Jessie Coonan, and dated 21st January, 1991. The appeals state that they are against decisions of the Valuer-General in relation to land situated at 72 and 74 Gordon Street, Hawthorne. The decisions appealed against were issued on 24th December, 1990. They were in respect of Annual Valuations and followed objections by the owner. Under s. 16J of the Act it is provided - 11 (2) Except as hereinafter by this section provided, an appeal shall not lie unless- it is instituted within 28 days after the date of issue to the owner concerned by the Valuer-General of notice of his decision upon the objection (which date of issue shall be stated in such notice). 11 Sub-Section 3 provides that An appeal shall be instituted by filing a notice of appeal in the Land Court registry. 11 It is not in dispute that the decisions on objection issued on 24th December, 1990. Twenty-eight (28) clear days from that date expired on 21st January, 1991. The notices of appeal were signed on this date, put in an envelope, addressed to the Registrar and posted in the ordinary course of post. They were received by the [1991] QLC 208 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 Registrar the following day. The notices did not specify the address of the appellant, nor was an address for service stated. They were accompanied by a covering letter from Mr John D. Currie, litigation assessor, dated 21st January, 1991, which read: Dear Sir, I enclose herewith two Notices of Appeal on behalf of my client. Yours faithfully, " The Registrar, acting in accordance with the provisions of s.21 (3A) of the Act, notified Mr Currie of the apparent defect and sought notification as is provided for by the provisions of ss. 16(J)(6) and 21 (3A). The reply from Mr Currie received within the time required said: I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 11th ultimo and would advise that the Notice of Appeal is valid as the Valuer-General's decision was not properly furnished in accordance with the Valuation of Land Act and hence the date of issue of the Notice has not complied with the relevant Act. Jn all the circumstances the matters raised ir:i your letter do not apply in these circumstances. " The exception contained in the opening words of s.16(J) (2) is that provided for in s.21 (3A) - that is where failure to institute the appeal "within the time so prescribed was caused by undue delay in the transmission of mail in the ordinary course of post". On the assumption that the decisions upon objection were validly issued, the appeals are out of time and should be struck out. This much is not in dispute. The ·argument advanced by Mr Currie who appeared for the appellant (now deceasedJ is that the notices of decision upon Qbjection were void in that sucn notices were served upon him and not upon the owner as is requfred in his submission by the Act. Were that the case, the appeals would have to be struck -- 2 of 4 -- ( 3 out for want of competency. In each case the objections against the valuation (copies of which are in evidence as Exhibit 2) were on the prescribed form (Form VG23). Regulation 26 provides that - ti An owner shall state his address for service in every notice of objection and/or appeal given by him under this Act. " The form provides for an address for service. In both cases the owner signed the form and stated the address for service as "72 Gordon Street, Hawthorne". The objections were lodged with the Valuer-General by Mr Currie under covering letter which read - II Dear Sir, I am enclosing herewith two notices of objection on behalf of Mrs Coonan and shall be pleased if you would advise me of developments as I am acting on her behalf. " The Valuer-General read this as a direction covering the address for service. The notices of decision upon the objections were addressed to the owner, care of Mr Currie at his business address in Fortitude Valley. The submission of Mr Currie is that notices of this kind must be served upon the owner. Reference was made to ss. 33, 34_ ana 35 of the Act dealing with service of notice, address for service, and substituted service. Under s. 33 it is provided insofar a~ is relevant that - Any notice or other_ communication by or on behalf of the Valuer- General may be served upon any person - (a) By causing it to be personally served on him; or (b) By leaving it at his address for service; or (c) By posting it by prepaid letter post addressed to him at his address for service, ...... 11 S. 34 provides in part - II The address for service last given to - the Valuer-General by any person shall, for all purposes under this Act and its Regulations, be his address for service, but where no address for service ... ;" -- 3 of 4 -- 4 S. 35 deals with substituted service in certain circumstances. - - There is an apparent hiatus between_ ss. 33 _ and 34 which was identified by Mr Currie and which prima facie supports his reasoning; that is, -that it would be incongruous and wrong to record he as th~ address for _service "for all purposes under this Act" .: s.34. He freely admits that the Valuer-General must be inundated with objections lodged by owners through their solicitors. On his reasoning any decisions upon such objections served on t~e owner through such solicitors would be invalid. However, Parliament has not overlooked this point. Section 47 of the Act provides insofar as is relevant - II (1) The Governor in Council may from time to time make regulations providing for all or any purposes, whether general or to meet particular cases, that may be convenient for the administration of this Act or that may be necessary or expedient to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act.. .. " Acting under that authority, the Governor-in-Council made Regulations including Regulation 26. This regulation takes the address for service on objection out of the general and puts it into the particular. An objection or appe~I deals with litigation. Mr Currie Jodged the objections. He said that he was acting on behalf of the owner. In that light, the only reasonable conclusion which could be drawn by the Valuer-General on receipt of t~e objections was that drawn by him and consequently I would hold that the notices of decision were validly issued. The appeals are struck out. Member of the Land Court -- 4 of 4 --