Arkinstall v Valuer-General - [2013] QLC 30

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Arkinstall v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 30
PARTIES:Corine Margretta Arkinstall
(appellant)

v.

Valuer-General

(respondent)

FILE NO:LVA592-11
DIVISION:General Division
PROCEEDING:  Appeal against annual valuations under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:                  28 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARD ON:  30 April 2013
HEARD AT:Beaudesert
MEMBER:Mr WA Isdale
ORDERS:1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2.    The valuation appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: Land Valuation Act 2010, ss 169(1) and (3) and 170
Valuers Registration Act 1992

Sales Evidence of Value ― Comparable Sales ― Expert Evidence

Hans and Else Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327
J.L. and I. Qualischefski v Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 167
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
N.R. and P.G. Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378

APPEARANCES: Mr M Arkinstall for the appellant
Mr P Prasad, senior lawyer, appeared for the respondent

Background

The appellant is the owner of 165.579 ha of rural land (the subject) situated at 479 Running Creek Road, about 4 km south-east of Rathdowney, which in turn is approximately 28 km radially south-west of Beaudesert. The land in this area is predominantly used for cattle grazing and for mixed farming.
As required by the Land Valuation Act 2010 the respondent has routinely valued this land as at 1 October 2010. Consequent upon that, the respondent has issued a valuation of $630,000 in its unimproved state. The appellant is dissatisfied with this valuation and has appealed to this Court.

The appeal

The appellant was represented by her son, Mr Matthew Arkinstall, who appeared as advocate and also gave evidence. In the notice of appeal the appellant contended for an unimproved value of $350,000 on the relevant date of 1 October 2010. In his final address, however, Mr Arkinstall submitted that the Court should find that the valuation was $500,000.

The appellant’s case

Mr Arkinstall has lived on the land since it was bought by his parents in 1979, when he was five years old. His business as a hay contractor has seen him acquire a detailed knowledge of the grasses in the area and their usefulness for grazing cattle. Mr Arkinstall is not qualified as a land valuer, he is a computer programmer and holds a bachelors degree in Information Technology from the University of Queensland.
Written material was presented on behalf of the appellant. It became Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5. The notice of appeal was Exhibit 1. Exhibits 2 to 5 contained a description of the subject, comments on two sales used by the Valuer-General to value the land, information concerning some alternative sales, maps and photographs. Also referred to was what was described as “non-sales”, where properties have not yet been able to be sold despite efforts to do so. It was urged that these provided indications of market value. Mr Arkinstall, by his evidence, was also able to correct factual matters such as that the land’s irrigation licence was for 65 ha rather than the 16 ha figure reported by…

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 Arkinstall v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Arkinstall v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 30
Case: [2013] QLC 30
Decision Date: 28 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Corine Margretta Arkinstall appealed against the valuation of her rural land at 479 Running Creek Road, Rathdowney, which the Valuer-General assessed at $630,000 as at 1 October 2010. The appellant contended for a valuation of $350,000, eventually submitting for a valuation of $500,000. The appellant’s case was based on comparable sales and “non-sales”, which she argued indicated a lower market value than that of the Valuer-General. The respondent, represented by Mr Denis Wall, a registered valuer, supported the valuation of $630,000 by the method of direct comparison with sales.

The legal issues in the case were whether the appellant had discharged the onus of proof under s.169(3) of the Land Valuation Act 2010 and whether the evidence supported a valuation of $3,000 per ha. The Court held that it was not an investigating tribunal and had to rely on the evidence put before it by the parties. The Land Appeal Court had established that the best test of value was sales of comparable properties on the open market. The Court was satisfied that the respondent’s expert evidence, uncontradicted by any evidence from another expert valuer, was that the material relied upon by the appellant did not require him to revise his valuation. The Court was satisfied that the valuation of $630,000, based on Sales 2 and 3 used by Mr Wall, was supported by properly conservative evidence in view of those sales.

The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the valuation appealed against.

Orders