Alma Investments Limited v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

The appellant, Alma Investments Limited, sought to appeal a valuation decision by the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Chief Executive had valued the unimproved value of a parcel of land at $72,500, a figure that was amended from an initial valuation of $78,500 following an objection. Alma Investments Limited contested this valuation, arguing that the true unimproved value should be $35,000. This valuation was initially set at $30,000, but later amended during the appeal process. The Chief Executive, represented by counsel from Crown Law, defended the valuation, with evidence provided by Gavin John Dunn, the registered valuer responsible for the original valuation.

The central legal issues revolved around the proper method of determining the unimproved value of the land, taking into account its zoning, the impact of surrounding developments, and the potential for future use as a child care centre. Alma Investments Limited argued that the potential use of the land for a child care centre represented its highest and best value, and thus should be factored into the valuation. The Chief Executive maintained that the land's current zoning as Residential A, and the surrounding developments, were the primary factors in determining its unimproved value. The burden of proof lay with Alma Investments Limited to demonstrate that the Chief Executive's valuation was incorrect.

The Court considered the evidence presented and concluded that while the potential use of the land as a child care centre represented its highest and best value, Alma Investments Limited had not fully discharged the burden of proving that the unimproved value should be set at $35,000. The Court emphasised the statutory presumption in favour of the Chief Executive's valuation, as well as the specific statutory provisions placing the burden of proof on the appellant. Given the evidence, the Court found that the Chief Executive's valuation of $72,500 was correct, and dismissed the appeal. The unimproved value of the land was affirmed at $72,500.