BCB Solutions No. 106 Pty Ltd v Valuer-General
[2024] QLC 27
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- BCB Solutions No. 106 Pty Ltd v Valuer-General[2024] QLC 27
- Add to List
BCB Solutions No. 106 Pty Ltd v Valuer-General[2024] QLC 27
BCB Solutions No. 106 Pty Ltd v Valuer-General[2024] QLC 27
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | BCB Solutions No. 106 Pty Ltd & Anor v Valuer-General [2024] QLC 27 |
PARTIES: | BCB Solutions No. 106 Pty Ltd BCB Solutions No. 16 Pty Ltd (applicants) v Valuer-General (respondent) |
FILE NOs: | LVA371-24 LVA372-24 LVA373-24 |
PROCEEDING: | Jurisdiction – Land Valuation Act 2010, s 155, s 157, s 158 |
DELIVERED ON: | 10 December 2024 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARD ON: | Submissions closed 4 November 2024 |
HEARD AT: | On the papers |
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: | GJ Smith |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – failure to appeal to Land Court in time – cause of failure to lodge – whether reasonable excuse. Land Valuation Act 2010, s 155, s 157, s 158 ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2012] QLC 48, applied Stevens v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1978) WAR 232 at 235, applied. |
APPEARANCES: | Not applicable |
- [1]In these applications the Court must determine pursuant to s 157 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the LVA) if there is jurisdiction to hear and determine three proposed appeals lodged on behalf of BCB Solutions No. 16 Pty Ltd and BCB Solutions No. 106 Pty Ltd. The subject sites are located at Milton within the Brisbane City Council local government area.
- [2]On 31 July 2024 a decision on objection for each site was issued by the respondent to the applicant. An appeal notice for each objection decision was received by the Land Court via email at 4:34pm on 30 September 2024 from Mr Brett Butler, a director of each applicant company (Mr Butler).
- [3]The Land Court registry closes at 4:30pm each weekday. The current appeal notices having been received at 4:34pm are deemed[1] to have been filed on the next business day (1 October 2024), one day after the expiry of the appeal period in each case. The Court will only have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeals if a “reasonable excuse” is established for not filing the notices within that period[2].
- [4]On 4 October 2024 the registry advised Mr Butler that as the appeal notices were not filed during the appeal period, reasonable excuse would need to be established for the Court to have jurisdiction to hear the appeals. Directions were issued for the filing of evidence and submissions regarding the issue of reasonable excuse.
Legislation
- [5]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).”
- [6]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
- [7]The only evidence filed in these applications is an affidavit of Mr Butler filed on 17 October 2024 in which he affirms that “the email was stuck in my inbox for a number of minutes” which resulted in the email being forwarded to the Court at 4:34pm. Mr Butler also affirmed that these events were beyond his control at that time. The respondent has taken no objection to this evidence and has not required that Mr Butler be available for cross-examination.
Submissions
- [8]No formal submissions were filed on behalf of the applicant companies.
- [9]The submissions on behalf of the Valuer-General[3] contend that in the circumstances a reasonable excuse is established and further that a finding of jurisdiction by the Court is not opposed. As understood, the contentions by the Valuer-General are that it is not uncommon for emails to become stuck and that such an event could be beyond the control of the emails sender.
Conclusion
- [10]The Court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable excuse is established for the proposed appeals not having been filed within the appeal period.[4] The evidence of Mr Butler although brief, is unchallenged and could not be considered inherently improbable given the nature of electronic transmission.
- [11]The Court is satisfied that Mr Butler’s stuck email has caused the appeal notices not to be filed within the appeal period; and further that this circumstance is a “cause consistent with a reasonable standard of conduct, the kind of thing that might be expected to delay the taking of action by a reasonable person”[5] Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine each appeal.
Orders
- The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine each appeal.
- The appeals be adjourned for a Preliminary Conference on a date to be fixed in Brisbane.