Allingham v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines - [2001] QLC 105

[2001] QLC 105

LAND COURT

BRISBANE

28 SEPTEMBER 2001

Re: AV00-578 and AV00-579
Appeals against unimproved valuations
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Local Government: Dalrymple

Adam J Allingham (AV00-578)

Adam J, Robert J & Sarah B Allingham (AV00-579)

v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

J U D G M E N T

These two appeals are concerned with valuations carried out by the Chief Executive under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act1944. By consent of the parties both appeals were heard together. Appeal AV00-579 is with respect to a property known as "Southwick West" which the Chief Executive valued at $630,000 as at a relevant date of 1 October 1999. The appellants contend for a figure of $430,000 which is the value that applied to the "Southwick West" land as at the date of the previous valuation in 1998. Appeal AV00-578 relates to a property known as "Emu Valley" which the Chief Executive valued at $430,000 also as at 1 October 1999, whereas the appellants proposed no change from the previous valuation figure of $295,000. Both properties are used for the breeding and fattening of beef cattle.
The appellants submitted their grounds of appeal in narrative form, however, I think I fairly summarise them as being mainly concerned with the proposition that "… the current market value of the properties which have been used as the basis of the revaluation, does not reflect the actual long-term sustainable productive capacity of those properties or 'Southwick West' (and) 'Emu Valley'".
Robert Johnston Allingham appeared on both appeals and provided evidence in support of the appeals. Stephen Brooks Gilbert, a registered valuer, provided valuation evidence in support of the Chief Executive's valuation. Mr Gilbert had not been the original valuer responsible for striking the statutory valuations, but following his inspection of the subject properties and consideration of certain sales properties, he agreed with the amounts in the original valuations.
"Southwick West" has an area of 21,393.4 ha and is situated about 106 km north-west of Charters Towers over a road which is frequently cut during most wet seasons. About 10% of the property comprises fragmented open black soil basalt and alluvial creek flats and about 90% is good red basalt forest country. It has a carrying capacity of one beast to 10 ha. The property is well positioned in regard to natural water, however, access to Talavera Creek is very steep with the result that the value of that source is limited. In addition, certain springs/soaks can become very boggy and can trap cattle if not fenced out. The property is generally between 400 metre and 440 metres above sea level and frosts commonly occur there during winter, resulting in a reduction in the quality of feed particularly in the protein level of grasses.
The presence of various weeds on the property comprises a disability. There is grader grass along all public road frontages, as well as parthenium and rubbervine along Lion and Ironbark Creeks. In…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Allingham v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources...

Details

AGLC: Allingham v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2001] QLC 105
Case: [2001] QLC 105
Decision Date: 28 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Allingham v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, the appellants, Adam J Allingham and Adam J, Robert J & Sarah B Allingham, appealed against the valuations of their properties, Southwick West and Emu Valley, carried out by the Chief Executive under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The appellants contended that the Chief Executive had undervalued their properties and sought to establish the correct valuation. The court had to determine if the Chief Executive's valuations were carried out in error and whether the court should consider sustainable land use practices in determining the value of the properties.

The court examined the methodology used by the Chief Executive in determining the value of the properties. The Chief Executive relied on three comparable sales to determine the market value of the properties. The court held that the applicable law requires the Chief Executive to find the market value of the lands to be valued, and a value based on comparable sales that reflect the test of value is appropriate. The court found that there was no warrant in the law that requires or endorses the consideration of sustainability and rational economics beyond the use of comparable sales. Furthermore, the appellants had not submitted a rational method for the court to take into account the sustainability argument.

In conclusion, the court found that the appellants had not proved that the Chief Executive's valuations were carried out in error. Both appeals were dismissed, and the Chief Executive's valuations were affirmed. The court held that it was bound to follow the law and not embark on a project of attempting to create public policy. The court also found that the appellants had not made out a case that land management choices are solely or principally attributable to the level of statutory land values.

Orders