Bogiatzis v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources - [1997] QLC 70

[1997] QLC 70

LAND COURT, BRISBANE 22 MAY 1997

Re:Appeal against Valuation - Valuation of Land Act 1944 - City of Townsville. (V96-512).

Mark Michael Bogiatzis and Samantha Bogiatzis v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

(Hearing at Townsville) D E C I S I O N

Mr and Mrs Bogiatzis are the owners of land described as Lot 170 on Crown Plan 889739, Parish of Coonambelah, containing an area of 791 m². Under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, as at 1 January 1996, the respondent Chief Executive determined the unimproved value of that land at $133,000. Following an objection by the owners against that valuation, the respondent reduced it to $130,000. The owners then appealed against that decision on their objection, advising that their estimate of unimproved value was $115,000.
The property is situated at 107 Yarrawonga Drive, North Ward, an inner city suburb approximately 2 km north-west of the Townsville City Centre. Yarrawonga Drive is a bitumen- sealed roadway with concrete kerbing and channelling.
The subject land is zoned "Residential 1" under the City of Townsville Town Plan and is presently vacant land. Electricity, telephone, town water and sewerage services are available to the land.
The land is above street level and rises to the rear boundary, with panoramic, but partially restricted views of Cleveland Bay and the Port of Townsville.
Mr GW Eales, a registered valuer in private practice in Townsville, appeared and gave evidence on behalf of the appellants. Mr D Grealy appeared on behalf of the respondent, while valuation evidence for the respondent was given by Mr RA Noakes, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Natural Resources.
Mr Eales valued the subject land at $115,000, while Mr Noakes gave evidence in support of the unimproved value at $130,000. There was little difference between the valuers in the description of the land, both admitting that it was situated in a prestige area of the suburb of North Ward, locally known as Yarrawonga. There was also little difference between them as to the views that could be obtained from the subject land, although Mr Noakes felt the views to be more extensive than did Mr Eales.

Mr Eales relied principally for his basis of valuation upon the sale of the subject land for

$115,000 on 30 October 1995, just two months prior to the date of valuation. Mr Eales had investigated that sale and considered it to be an arm’s length transaction. Mr Noakes rejected that sale as a basis of valuation, explaining that the land had previously been the subject of a contract between the vendor, Yarrawonga Pty Ltd and J and E Markov, in August 1995, for

$135,000. However, for reasons that were not explained, that sale did not proceed. The appellants purchased the subject land some two months later for $20,000 less than the earlier contract price.

Mr Noakes went on to explain that his investigations had revealed that at the time Yarrawonga Pty Ltd was suffering some…

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 Bogiatzis v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

Details

AGLC: Bogiatzis v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources [1997] QLC 70
Case: [1997] QLC 70
Decision Date: 22 May 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Land Court of Brisbane, Mark and Samantha Bogiatzis appealed against the valuation of their land, Lot 170 on Crown Plan 889739, in the Parish of Coonambelah. The Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, determined the unimproved value of the land to be $133,000 under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The owners objected to this valuation and it was subsequently reduced to $130,000. The Bogiatzis appealed this decision, asserting their estimate of unimproved value to be $115,000. The land, situated in the City of Townsville, is a "Residential 1" zoned property, vacant and with available utilities. The case hinged on the appropriate valuation of the land, with two expert valuers presenting differing opinions. Mr Eales, representing the appellants, valued the land at $115,000, while Mr Noakes, representing the respondent, valued it at $130,000. Both valuers agreed on the general attributes of the land but differed on the relevance and interpretation of the previous sales. The court had to decide on the appropriate method of valuation and whether the sale of the subject land should be considered as the basis of valuation. The court found that the sale of the subject land two months prior to the valuation date, as an arm’s length transaction, provided the best basis for the unimproved value. The court rejected the hearsay evidence of information conveyed to the valuers by employees of the agents, Ferry Real Estate, due to its conflicting nature. The court determined that the unimproved value of $115,000 was not out of relativity with other lands in the vicinity. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the unimproved value of the subject land was set at $115,000.

Orders