Brian Thomas Murray & Elisabeth Anne Murray v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2007] QLC 4
•6 February 2007
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Brian Thomas Murray & Elisabeth Anne Murray v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water [2007] QLC 0004 PARTIES: Brian Thomas Murray & Elisabeth Anne Murray
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NOS.: AV2006/0003 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Appeal against Unimproved Valuation DELIVERED ON: 6 February 2007 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Roma JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: Mr BR O'Connor ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Valuation of land – relativity with adjoining properties – historic relativity – alteration of previous valuation - Valuation of Land Act 1944, s.29A, s.44 APPEARANCES: Mr G M Langton for the appellants.
Mr K. Fisher Principal Lawyer (Crown Law) for respondent.
This is an appeal under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act) against a decision of the Chief Executive determining the value of a property known as "Yarrum". The latter is some 883.833 hectares in area is situated on the Roma southern road approximately 12 kilometres south of Roma, within the Bungil Shire.
Following a substantial reduction after lodging the court appeal, the Chief Executive now leads evidence to an amount of $650,000 ($735/hectare). The appellants contend a figure of $600,000. The relevant date for this valuation is at 1 October 2004.
The appellants were represented at the hearing, under written authorisation, by Mr Graeme Langton. Mr Langton is related to the appellants but does not give evidence in any expert capacity. Evidence for the Chief Executive was given by Mr Anthony Dunk, presently co-ordinating valuer for the Roma district.
Grounds of Appeal
In the notice of appeal dated 27/12/05 lodged by the appellants, the grounds for appeal stated are as follows:
· The valuation is not supported by sales evidence.
· It fails to consider the historic valuations applied to the property.
· The valuation is inconsistent with and not appropriately compared to values of similar properties.
Appellants' Case
Much of the appellants' argument of the hearing was directed to a claim that "Yarrum" had been grossly over-valued in a "split" valuation exercise done in 2002. "Yarrum" and an adjoining property, namely "Wellesley", were held in common ownership to 2002 but were then sold by Mr Murray (senior) – "Yarrum" to the current appellants and "Wellesley" to a Mr McCabe. In this split valuation, the appellants claim "Yarrum" was excessively valued compared with its historic relativities with neighbouring properties; conversely, "Wellesley", it is claimed, was significantly undervalued. No appeal was lodged against this 2002 "split" valuation of "Yarrum". The relevant date for previous general valuation for Bungil was 2000 with the current one under appeal 2004.
The appellants' now claim they have paid excessive rates for the years from 2002 as a result of this excessive valuation; they claim the alleged error should be corrected under s.29A of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. This provision states:
"29A Alteration of valuation for rate, rental or land tax adjustment
(1) The chief executive may alter any valuation in force at any time during the period starting 3 years immediately before, and continuing since, the effective date of the current valuation, to enable an adjustment to be made to rates payable under the Local Government Act 1993 or the City of Brisbane Act 1924, rental payable under the Land Act 1994 or land tax payable under the Land Tax Act 1915.
(1A) An alteration made under subsection (1) is effective from –
(a)if the event that requires the alteration to be made happened during the period mentioned in subsection (1) – the date of the event; and
(b)if the event happened before the period began – the beginning of the period.
(2) However, the chief executive may decide not to alter a valuation under subsection (1) if the chief executive is of the opinion, formed on reasonable grounds, that the rate, rental or land tax adjustment resulting from the valuation alteration would be so small that making the alteration can not be justified in the circumstances.
(3) The chief executive may alter a valuation of land under subsection (1) only if the alteration is because of an alteration of a valuation permitted under section 28 or 30(3)."
The appellants concede that they are not able to take advantage of the late lodgement provision of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, namely s.44, for the 2002 valuation due to the one year time limitation in that section.
If the court is unable to address s.29A claim, the appellants then state $600,000 is the correct figure for 2004 based on the historic relativity with Alice Downs, Lochiel, and Tuarn. Evidence was led showing how these have increased in relative terms since 1979. All other things being equal, "Yarrum", it is claimed, should now be placed at $600,000 (approximately). No sales evidence was produced by the appellants to support this claim; rather the historic increases and relativities were the basis of their evidence.
Respondent's case
Mr Dunk, valuer for the respondent, did not enter into the dispute as to the correctness of the 2002 split valuation. He has relied principally in sales to support his figure. He states that after the appeal was lodged he conducted a detailed inspection of the property and used modern technological aids to assist in ascertaining various land types and other features of the property. This detailed inspection resulted in an increase in the area of the more valuable downs country area on "Yarrum" – an increase from 400 hectares to 510 hectares. This was the essential explanation why there was an increase on "Yarrum" of greater proportion than on the three adjoining properties. If the downs country had remained at 400 hectares, his calculation is that "Yarrum" would have been valued at $600,000, the amount contended for by Mr Langton for the appellants.
Mr Dunk's Sales
Mr Dunk relied generally on some 23 sales in the area but states that two particular ones are most relevant.
1. "Araluen": date of sale 24/03/2004, sale price $1,413,270, analysed to an unimproved capital value of $808,452 ($607/hectare); area of sale property 1331 hectares.
Compared to "Yarrum", the sale is considered superior in access and size, inferior in country type and situation, and similar in water and rainfall. Overall and on a rate per hectare basis it is considered inferior to "Yarrum" which is valued at $735/hectare.
2. "Knockalong": date of sale 26/03/2004, sale price $1,018,240 analysed to an unimproved value $669,171 ($860/hectare); area of sale property 777 hectares.
Compared to "Yarrum", the sale is superior in access and country, inferior in situation, size and artificial waters, similar in rainfall. Overall, the sale property is considered superior and also superior on a rate per hectare.
Consideration of Issues
Mr Fisher, counsel for the respondent, argued strongly at various times throughout the hearing that any alleged errors in the "split" valuation of 2002 and consequent alteration in such value were not matters for this court. He claimed that Mr Langton was attempting to use the 2004 appeal hearing to promote a wider agenda, namely retrospectively adjusting the 2002 figure.
I agree with the submission that action under s.29A cannot be properly considered by the Court at this current appeal. Any alteration under s.29A is at the discretion of the chief executive subject to certain conditions being first met. A legal challenge to the apparent refusal of the chief executive to alter under s.29A may be able to be pursued in another judicial forum or via some administrative review.
Given the substantial reduction by the respondent on appeal for the 2004 figure, it may be well that the 2002 "split" figure not appealed against was in error if it was in proportion to the original 2004 figure. However, there may be other reasons (perhaps wider policy ones), not canvassed at this hearing as to why alteration was not made. Further, as stated above, this question is outside the jurisdiction of this court at the present hearing.
The sales evidence adduced by Mr Dunk was not challenged by the appellant and supports the figure placed on the subject by the respondent. Further, Mr Langton concedes that if the increased figure of 510 hectares placed on the downs country is adopted, then the $650,000 can be justified. Mr Langton argues that had similar closer inspections been done on the properties, Alice Downs, Lochiel and Tuarn, this may had revealed better country on them. However, with restraints on time and resources, it was really only the subject and sales that Mr Dunk was able to pursue in detail. While relativity is desirable, comparable sales are the principal comparison. The current exercise shows that, from one aspect, there may be a downside to appealing; that is, classification of country may be changed resulting in a increase in values compared to other lots not subject to appeal and thus not inspected.
To address, in summary, the appeal grounds:
· The valuation of the chief executive is properly supported by sales evidence;
· While historical values are not the key criteria when current sales evidence is available, the historical relativity can be maintained when the increased downs area is factored into calculations.
· Consistency with other properties appears correct, given the reason in the paragraph above.
Precise relativity would only be possible if Alice Downs, Lochiel and Tuarn were inspected in detail and there is no obligation on the chief executive to do so given such properties were not subject of appeal.
A final factor that should be mentioned is that the "deeming correct" provision of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, s.33. This deems the valuation of the chief executive correct until proven otherwise on objection or appeal. Evidence from the appellants has not overcome the presumption of correctness.
After careful consideration of all the written and oral material presented I am of the view that the chief executive's figure should not be disturbed.
Mr Fisher counsel for the respondent requested that the question of costs in the hearing be left open until after the decision. The chief executive is given 14 days from the date of this decision to make any submission on this question of costs of the hearing.
BR O'CONNOR
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR
0
0
0