Copley v Valuer-General

[2020] QLC 7

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Copley & Anor v Valuer-General [2020] QLC 7

PARTIES:

Denise Copley
(appellant)

Gregory Copley
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:

LVA675-19

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against objection decision on a valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered 5 November 2019
Reasons delivered 6 February 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Heard on the papers

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:

GJ Smith

ORDER:

The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS – TIME FOR SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS OR RENEWAL – where the appellant failed to appeal to the Land Court in time –where the Notice of Appeal was lost or delayed in the post– whether there was a reasonable excuse for the failure to lodge the appeal in time – where the Court found there was a reasonable excuse, and that it therefore had jurisdiction to hear the appeal

Land Valuation Act 2010, s 155, s 157, s 158

ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2012] QLC 48, cited

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

1. In this matter, the Court must determine if it has jurisdiction pursuant to s 157 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the LVA) to hear and determine an appeal against an annual valuation as at 1 October 2018 of land located at North Maclean within the Logan City Council local government area. 

1. The respondent issued an objection decision notice in respect of the subject property 3 July 2019. A Notice of Appeal[1] in respect of this decision was filed in the Land Court registry on Tuesday 3 September 2019, 1 day after the expiry of the appeal period.[2]  Accordingly, the Court will only have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal if a “reasonable excuse”— as required by s 158 of the LVA — is established.

   [1]Ex 1.

   [2]Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 38.

1. On 10 September 2019, a Deputy Registrar wrote to the applicants to advise that the Court could not hear the proposed appeal unless a reasonable excuse was established for not filing the Notice of Appeal within the appeal period.

1. By email correspondence dated 3 October 2019,[3] Mr Gregory Copley provided tracking information from Australia Post which indicates that the Notice of Appeal would ordinarily have been received in the Land Court registry on Monday 2 September 2019.

   [3]Ex 2.

1. On 25 October 2019, the registry received email correspondence from In- House Legal, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy indicating that the Department did not oppose the Court finding that jurisdiction was established. Notwithstanding this advice, the existence of a reasonable excuse must still be established on the balance of probabilities in respect of the failure to lodge the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed period.[4]

   [4]ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2012] QLC 48 [5].

1. On 5 November 2019, after considering the evidence, I determined the issue of jurisdiction without formal reasons in order to allow a Preliminary Conference to be scheduled immediately. These reasons concern this initial finding and order in respect of jurisdiction.

Legislation

1. Section 157 (2) of the LVA provides:

“(2) Subject to section 158, an appeal cannot be started after 60 days after the day of issue stated in the objection decision notice (the appeal period).”

1. Section 158 of the LVA provides:

“158 - Late filing
(1) This section applies if a valuation appeal notice is filed after
       the appeal period has ended.
(2) The Land Court can hear the appeal only if—

(a) the valuation appeal notice was filed 1 year or less after

the objection decision notice was issued; and

(b) the appellant satisfies the court there was a reasonable

excuse for not filing the notice within the appeal period.

Example of reasonable excuse—

The notice of the valuer-general’s decision or the valuation appeal notice was lost or delayed in the ordinary course of post.”

Evidence

1. The main evidence provided to the Court by the applicants comprises the email correspondence referred to in paragraph [4] and admitted as Exhibit 2. No evidence was called by or on behalf of the respondent.

Submissions

1. Neither party made any formal submissions to the Court, although a legal representative on behalf of the respondent advised that a finding of jurisdiction was not opposed.  

Conclusion

1. An example of reasonable excuse set out in 158 of the LVA provides: “The notice of the Valuer-General’s decision or the valuation appeal notice was lost or delayed in the ordinary course of post.”

1. On the basis of the information provided by Mr Copley in Exhibit 2, I am satisfied that the proposed Notice of Appeal was delayed in the ordinary course of post and am therefore satisfied that reasonable excuse is established in the circumstances.

Order:

The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.