Bitoni Pty Ltd v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 307

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Logan City Council. (AV91-922) (Valuation of Land Act). Bitoni Pt y Ltd V. The Valuer-General DECISION In this case, a matter of jurisdiction is involved. LAND COURT, BRISBANE 14th February, 1991 The appellant having duly objected against a valuation issued by the Valuer-General in respect of certain land held by the appellant on which a caravan park is situated received a decision on the objection. The decision issued on 24th June, 1991. Under the relevant part of the Act (s 16J) the appellant had 28 days inI . which to appeal to the Court. 28 clear days from the date of issue expired on 22nd July, 1991. A notice of appeal was received by the Registrar in the post on 29th July, 1991. The envelope containing the notice of appeal was postmarked at Springwood on 26th July, 1991 . The appeal was therefore filed out of time. The Registrar acting in accordance with the powers vested in him under the Act notified the appellant of that fact and informed the appellant that under the Act the appeal does not lie unless the appellant proves to the 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; 11 (s21 (3A)). The appellant replied to the notification as follows - Being a caravan park all letters to be posted are placed in a box in the front office and when the postie drops off our mail he then comes in and collects the letters. Some days he does forget but this last week we were not aware of him not picking up the mail, as the letter was put in the letter box here about the 18th or 19th. This should have left us with plenty of time. 11 [1991] QLC 307 -- 1 of 2 -- 2 Mr J.B. Mendham, who appeared and gave evidence on behalf of the appellant, said that a box for letters to be posted sits on top of the desk in the office of the caravan park and that another small letter box is outside in which tenants are asked to leave keys on early departure. By arrangement with the postman, mail to be posted is collected from the box on top of the desk when mail is delivered to the office. He said that at the relevant time the regular postman was relieved by another and he believes that in the circumstances the relieving postman may have mistaken the small letter box outside the office as the box containing mail for posting. He said that the arrangement was convenient but agreed that the box was not an "Australia Post box". The question thus arises as at what time a letter is in "the ordinary course of post". In Seaworld Pt y Ltd v. The Valuer-General (1978) 5 Q.L.C.R. 309, the Land Appeal Court after hearing submissions on the meaning of the words "undue delay" and "in the ordinary course of post" held that the meaning of these words does not come into operation unless it is first proved that the item is in the mail. For an item to be in the mail, the Court held that - II There must be a handing across or passing across of an item of mail before it can be said that an article is in the transmission of mail." On the evidence in this case, the earliest time at which it could be held that the envelope containing the notice of appeal was i!J the transmission of mail was the date the er;welope was postmarked at Springwood. There are accordingly no grounds which would allow the Court to extend time. The appeal is therefore struck out for want of jurisdiction. D. M. White·-~., .J Member of the Land Court -- 2 of 2 --