Background
Jagdish and Jyotsna Lodhia challenged the Valuer General’s $1.93 million valuation of their Beverley Park property for the 2022 valuation year, contending that comparable sales supported a value of $1.3 million. The Valuer General rejected their objection in a final determination dated 30 June 2025, but the Lodhias did not commence their Class 3 appeal until 13 May 2026, well beyond the statutory 60-day period.
The Lodhias sought an extension of time under the Land Valuation Act 1916. At the hearing, Kamalapathi Nimmagadda, a solicitor holding a practising certificate but seeking to appear as an agent rather than as their legal representative, was initially granted limited leave to represent them on the extension application.
Evidence produced by the Valuer General showed that the final determination had been emailed to Nimmagadda on 30 June 2025 and expressly stated the 60-day appeal deadline. Nimmagadda acknowledged that he had overlooked the correspondence and had not brought it to the Lodhias’ attention, potentially explaining at least part of their delay.
The Court’s Holding
The Court did not decide whether to extend the time for commencing the valuation appeal. Pepper J held that the Lodhias should have an opportunity to file further evidence explaining the delay because it would be unjust for the consequences of Nimmagadda’s apparent oversight to be visited upon them without that opportunity.
The Court revoked Nimmagadda’s leave to appear as the Lodhias’ agent. His acknowledgment that he had received but overlooked the final determination made him a potential witness on the extension application and placed him in a conflict of interest with the Lodhias. His continued appearance therefore would not facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues.
The extension application was adjourned part-heard to permit further evidence, with directions for filings by both sides. The Court also suggested that the Lodhias consider applying for referral for pro bono legal assistance because of the complexity of the Class 3 proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The Court did not grant or refuse an extension of time; it adjourned that application for further evidence.
- An agent who may be responsible for a missed appeal deadline can become a material witness and face a disqualifying conflict of interest.
- Leave for an agent to appear depends not only on formal compliance with procedural rules but also on whether the representation serves the parties’ best interests and the overriding purpose.
Why It Matters
The ruling highlights the procedural risks when a non-party agent receives a decision triggering an appeal deadline but fails to communicate it promptly. That failure may become central evidence in an application for relief from the expired time limit.
It also demonstrates that Australian courts will scrutinize an agent’s independence and suitability even where the agent holds a practising certificate. When the agent becomes a potential witness or bears possible responsibility for the procedural default, the court may revoke leave to appear and encourage the litigants to obtain independent legal assistance.