Blundell v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 142

.. I I Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - Shire of Maroochy. (AV91-500). V.S. and S.J. Blundell V. The Valuer-General DECISION ON POINT OF JURISDICTION (Hearing at Maroochydore) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 25th October, 1991 Mr and Mrs Blundell are the owners of a house property at 51 Palm Avenue, Coolum Beach, and under valuation Roll No 4325, the Valuer-General, in a revaluation of the lands in the Shire as at 31st March, 1990, valued the parcel at $21,000. The_ appellants objected to this valuation and were notified by letter of 29th April, 1991, addressed to them at 51 Palm Avenue, Coolum Beach 4573, that the Valuer-General had disallowed the objection. The notice advised "Unless you appeal to the Land Court within 28 days after the date of issue of this notice in the terms of the Valuation of Land Act 1944-1987 and the regulations thereunder such decision shall be deemed to stand and the matter shall be deemed to be determined". letter reads: II Mr Blundell wrote to the Valuer-General on 23rd May, 1991, and the In reply to your notification of 29/4/91, re my objection to the valuation on my property, Valuation No 4325 Maroochy Shire. I regret that I cannot accept your reply, as the valuers who visited my property, allegedly one State and one Federal, failed to. give any [1991] QLC 142 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 logical or legal reason for their valuation. I therefore request that you inform me of at least the reason for disallowing the objection. If a compromise cannot be reached, I ask that this letter be accepted as notice of intention to appeal. This being the case I request that you kindly forward the enclosed letter to the Land Court as a request for appeal per your instruction. This I ask as I am currently out of Australia and may not be back before the stated 28 day limit for appeal. Also I do not know the address or title for the Land Court and whether or not it is a State or Federal department. " A copy of this letter was forwarded by facsimile to the Office of the Land Court by the Valuer-General at 4.47 p.m. on 28th May, 1991. This facsimile (Exhibit 1) had an endorsement upon it that it had been received into the office of the Valuer- General on the same day. I was not told when the letter was posted. The Registrar of the Land Court by letter dated 6th June, 1991, advised Mr and Mrs Blundell of the receipt of the notice of appeal in the Court on 28th May, 1991 and that he had information that the period of 28 days within which an owner may institute an appeal expired on 27th May, 1991, and it would thus appear that the notice of appeal had been filed out of time. They were advised of the relevant provisions of the Valuation of Land Act that the appeal does not lie u nl ess th ey notified the Court that they intended to prove to th e satisfaction of the Court that the 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. The appellants notified their intention of endeavouring to so satisfy the Court. When the matter came before me, Mr Blundell referred to the difficulties he had experienced being absent from Australia and being unaware of the address of the Court. He makes reference to other correspondence written -- 2 of 3 -- • 3 from New Zealand and the length of time such correspondence took to reach the addressee in Australia. - I have considered the submissions made by Mr Blundell and find that his letter to the Valuer-General of 23rd May, 1991, was received by the Valuer- General on 28th May and was sent by the Valuer-General to the Court on that date: While the Valuer-General has no obligation to lodge an appeal in the Court on behalf of an appellant, the notice was, in this case, relayed to the Court on the same day. The last date for lodgment of an appeal was 27th May, 1991, and the appeal is out of time. While Mr Blundell has made submissions concerning the length of time it has- taken for correspondence from the point of post in New Zealand to delivery to addressees in Queensland, this does not establish there was undue delay in the course of post as I am not advised whether such a period is the usual period to elapse for such mail to be delivered. The provisions of the Valuation of Land Act are mandatory and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal unless it is filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I find here that there is no evidence of undue delay in the course of post and that the appeal was lodged out of time. Accordingly, the appeal is struck out for want of jurisdiction. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --