Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QLC
  3. 2025
  4. Body Corporate for '10 Harvest Court' CTS 29099; Dexus Life Nominees Pty Limited; The Trust Company Limited v Valuer-General - [2025] QLC 14

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Body Corporate for '10 Harvest Court' CTS 29099; Dexus Life Nominees Pty Limited; The Trust Company Limited v Valuer-General[2025] QLC 14

Body Corporate for '10 Harvest Court' CTS 29099; Dexus Life Nominees Pty Limited; The Trust Company Limited v Valuer-General[2025] QLC 14

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Body Corporate for ‘10 Harvest Court’ CTS 29099; Dexus Life Nominees Pty Limited; The Trust Company Limited v Valuer-General [2025] QLC 14

PARTIES:

Body Corporate for ‘10 Harvest Court’ Community Titles Scheme 29099, Dexus Life Nominees Pty Limited, The Trust Company Limited

(applicants)

v

Valuer-General

(respondent)

FILE NOs:

LVA080-25, LVA081-25, LVA082-25, LVA083-25, LVA084-25, LVA085-25

PROCEEDING:

Hearing of applications – jurisdiction

DELIVERED ON:

4 July 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

Submissions closed 30 June 2025

HEARD AT:

Heard on the papers

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:

GJ Smith

ORDER:

  1. The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine each appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Failure to file notice of appeal in time – Land Valuation Act 2010, sections 157 and 158 – where an employee of the appellants agent mistakenly emailed each appeal notice to an incorrect address – where appeal notices emailed after registry closure – late filing – whether slip by agent – whether reasonable excuse.

Land Valuation Act 2010 s 158

Practice Note 1 of 2022

Director-General, Department of Transport v Congress Community Development and Education (1998) 19 QLCR 168, applied.

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable.

Background

  1. [1]
    In each of these applications s 158 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the LVA) requires that the Court determine if the proposed appeals may be heard and determined despite the appeal lodgement period having already elapsed.
  1. [2]
    Objection decision notices in respect of each property were issued by the Valuer-General (the respondent) on 26 March 2025. It is not in dispute, that the sixty-day appeal period expired at 4.30pm on 26 May 2025.
  1. [3]
    On Tuesday 27 May 2025 correspondence was forwarded by the registry to SVA Property Advisory (the appellants’ agent) advising that as the appeal notices had been received after the appeal period had closed. This correspondence confirmed that an appeal may be heard if the Court is satisfied there was a reasonable excuse for not filing the notice within the appeal period. Copies of s 157 and s 158 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 were included with this correspondence.
  1. [4]
    On 28 May 2025 directions were made setting out a timetable for the filing of evidence and submissions by the parties.

Legislation

  1. [5]
    Section 157(2) of the LVA provides –
  1. 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. [6]
    Section 158 of the LVA provides –

Late filing

  1. This section applies if a valuation appeal notice is filed after the appeal period has ended.
  1. The Land Court can hear the appeal only if—
  1. the valuation appeal notice was filed 1 year or less after the objection decision notice was issued; and
  1. 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 and submissions on behalf of applicants

  1. [7]
    The applicants rely on two affidavits[1] by Edwina Ryrie King, a team administrator employed by SVA Property Advisory. One affidavit relates to the initial proposed appeals LVA080-25 to LVA084-25, the other relates solely to appeal LVA085-25. The distinction between the affidavits relates to the sequence of events and does not impact the outcome of the applications.
  1. [8]
    In each affidavit, Ms King deposes that on or about 9.00am on 26 May 2025 she prepared email correspondence attaching the six notices of appeal for forwarding to the registry for lodgement. At approximately 9.25pm that day Ms King, after becoming aware that no acknowledgment of receipt had issued from the registry; checked the initial email and discovered that it had been inadvertently forwarded to an alternative address within SVA Property Advisory.
  1. [9]
    This initial email, together with the emails forwarded the registry by Ms King at 9.25pm and 9.54pm on 26 May 2025 are all included in the index of exhibits to her affidavits filed on 11 June 2025.
  1. [10]
    The submissions in support of a finding of reasonable excuse are based largely on the judgment of Muir J in Congress Community[2] and are set out as follows:
  1. i.
    The delay in filing was slight, being less than 6 hours.
  1. ii.
    The appellant’s acted appropriately in entrusting the appeals to agents with considerable experience in lodging appeals.
  1. iii.
    Ms King lodged the appeals following an extended period of work.
  1. iv.
    The appeals were late because of a “slip” on the part of SVA Property Advisory.
  1. v.
    The appellants had done everything that could be reasonably expected of them.

Submissions by the respondent

  1. [11]
    The detailed submissions on behalf of the respondent ultimately conclude that “the Court should find that the applicants‘ agents administrative or clerical error of sending the appeals to the incorrect email address and then to remedy the errors, which resulted in the appeals being filed the next business day amounts to a reasonable excuse to file their appeal late under the LVA”[3]

Conclusion

  1. [12]
    With the agreement of the parties these applications have been able to be determined “on the papers” without a formal hearing. Notwithstanding the consensus regarding a finding of reasonable excuse, the Court must still consider the specific evidence regarding the prevailing circumstances and determine the issue of jurisdiction pursuant to s 158 of the LVA.[4]
  1. [13]
    The affidavits of Ms King comprise the only sworn evidence before the Court. The initial email together with those subsequently forwarded are exhibited to the filed affidavits. Ms King has not been required for cross-examination and it is not contended that her evidence should not be accepted.
  1. [14]
    The Court is satisfied on the evidence that the oversight by Ms King on the morning of the final day of the appeal period is a slip as envisaged by Muir J in Congress Community[5] and a finding of reasonable excuse must therefore follow.
  1. [15]
    The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine each of the appeals.

Order

  1. 1.
    The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine each appeal.

Footnotes

[1]  Ex 1.

[2]Director-General, Department of Transport v Congress Community Development and Education (1998) 19 QLCR 168.

[3]  Respondent’s submissions filed 25 June 2025 at [37].

[4]ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0048 at [5].

[5]Director-General, Department of Transport v Congress Community Development and Education (1998) 19 QLCR 168.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Body Corporate for '10 Harvest Court' CTS 29099; Dexus Life Nominees Pty Limited; The Trust Company Limited v Valuer-General

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Body Corporate for '10 Harvest Court' CTS 29099; Dexus Life Nominees Pty Limited; The Trust Company Limited v Valuer-General

  • MNC:

    [2025] QLC 14

  • Court:

    QLC

  • Judge(s):

    GJ Smith

  • Date:

    04 Jul 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Director-General, Department of Transport v Congress Community Development and Education Unit Ltd (1998) 19 QLCR 168
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1998) 19 QLCR 168
Cite 2 - (1998) 19 QLCR 168
Cite 3 - (1998) 19 QLCR 168
ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2012] QLC 48
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QLC 48

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.