Banks v Valuer-General - [2017] QLC 52

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Banks v Valuer-General [2017] QLC 52

PARTIES: Phillip Marshall Banks

(appellant)

v

Valuer-General

(respondent)

FILE NO/s: LVA1161-16

DIVISION: General

PROCEEDING: Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON: 29 September 2017

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 6 September 2017

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: WA Isdale

ORDER/S:
1.     The appeal is dismissed.

2.     The valuation appealed against, namely the unimproved valuation of Lot 15 on SP 251406 as at 1 October 2015 in the amount of $330,000 is confirmed

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – Where appellant objects to valuation – where highest and best use of the land is for farming – where the appellant contends for a valuation based on relativity with other valuations – where the Valuer-General’s valuation is based on comparable sales – where there is expert valuation evidence for the Valuer-General only

Land Valuation Act 2010 s 26, s 46, s 48

Collins Thomson Pty Ltd v Clayton [2002] NSWSC 366

Donald Neil Meiers and Florence Myrtle Meiers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 19

Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 11

Finlayson & Anor v Valuer-General (2013) 34 QLCR 101

Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 237

Heatham Pty Ltd as Trustee v Valuer-General [2017] QLC 26

Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [1999] NSWSC 828

JL & I Qualischefski v Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 167

NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378

APPEARANCES: The appellant in person.
PS Prasad, Principal Lawyer, In-house Legal, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for the respondent.

Background

The appellant owns Lot 15 on SP 251406. It has an area of 7.949 hectares and its street address is 296A Savages Road, Brookfield.

The respondent, in a routine process, valued it on 1 October 2015 in the amount of $330,000. It was valued on the unimproved basis.

The appellant has appealed to this Court, contending that the land should be valued at $66,000 as at the 1 October 2015 date of valuation.

The appellant’s case

The appellant gave evidence and presented his case, which followed his outline.[1] He described the land as frost-free and with good, productive soil. The main crop on the land is custard apples. There is also a mango orchard and hoop pines for timber.
[1]Ex 2.

The principal thrust of the appellant’s case is that there are no comparable sales to be found and that the respondent has erroneously compared his land to non-farming land, resulting in a valuation which is too high.

The appellant’s evidence

The appellant described himself as an expert in all aspects of agriculture,[2] and made clear that he was not claiming any expertise as a valuer.[3] He accepted that he had a conflict of interest as he was personally financially interested in the case.[4]
[2]T 1-9, line 4.
[3]T 1-11, line 25.
[4]T 1-10, lines 12 to 13.

Challenge to the appellant as an expert

The respondent…

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 Banks v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Banks v Valuer-General [2017] QLC 52
Case: [2017] QLC 52
Decision Date: 29 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Banks v Valuer-General involved the appellant, Banks, objecting to the valuation of his land as determined by the Valuer-General. The dispute centred on the valuation of the land, which was assessed by the Valuer-General for the purposes of rating. Banks argued that the valuation should reflect the land's potential for farming, while the Valuer-General maintained that the valuation was appropriately based on comparable sales. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court, where the appellant sought to appeal the decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate method for valuing the land in question. Banks contended that the highest and best use of the land was for farming and that the valuation should be determined based on relativity with other valuations. In contrast, the Valuer-General's approach was to base the valuation on comparable sales of similar properties. The court had to determine whether the Valuer-General's reliance on comparable sales was the correct method under the relevant statutory framework and whether the appellant's proposed valuation method was valid.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the statutory provisions governing land valuation and the expert evidence presented. The court found that the Valuer-General's method of valuation, which was based on comparable sales, was consistent with the statutory requirements. The court also determined that the expert evidence supporting the Valuer-General's valuation was reliable and appropriate. Consequently, the court upheld the Valuer-General's valuation, rejecting Banks' contention that the valuation should be based on the land's potential for farming. The court held that the Valuer-General's approach was in accordance with the statutory provisions and the evidence presented.

The final orders of the court dismissed Banks' appeal and confirmed the valuation of the land as determined by the Valuer-General. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines in land valuation and the relevance of comparable sales in determining property values.

Orders