Bricon Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

Bricon Pty Ltd, the appellant, challenged the valuation of its land in Roma, Queensland, against the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources. The land, previously used as a Commonwealth Rifle Range Reserve, was zoned “Special Purposes” and listed as a “probable” contaminated site. The appellant argued that the Department’s valuation of $40,000 was too high given the land’s listing and potential difficulties in achieving rezoning and remediation. The appellant sought a lower valuation of $13,651. The court had to determine the appropriate valuation of the land considering its potential for rezoning and the impact of the contamination listing.

The primary legal issue was whether the chief executive’s valuation was too high due to the land's “probable” contamination listing, which the appellant argued would deter potential buyers and reduce the land’s market value. The court considered whether the valuation appropriately accounted for the risks associated with rezoning and remediation, and whether the appellant had successfully rebutted the presumption of correctness of the chief executive’s valuation. The court had to weigh the evidence presented by the appellant and the registered valuer, Mr. R.E.D. Allison, to determine the unimproved market value of the land.

The court held that while Mr. Allison had employed a correct valuation methodology, his valuation did not sufficiently account for the risks associated with the contamination listing and the potential stigma it may impose on the land’s market value. The court found that the risks identified by Mr. Allison were not the only factors that would affect market value and that the assumption that no market stigma would attach to the land was unreasonable. Consequently, the court determined that the valuation was too high and reduced it to $34,000, acknowledging the appellant’s burden to prove that the valuation was excessive. The court set aside the chief executive’s valuation and substituted its own, finding the unimproved value to be $34,000.

The court ordered that the unimproved value of the land be determined as Thirty-four Thousand Dollars ($34,000). This decision underscores the importance of considering all relevant factors, including potential market stigma, in land valuations under the Valuation of Land Act 1944.