Brisbane Square Pty Ltd v Valuer-General - [2016] QLC 69

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Brisbane Square Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 69

PARTIES:
Brisbane Square Pty Ltd
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO/s: LVA047-15

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Appeal against annual land valuation

DELIVERED ON: 11 November 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 15-18, 26 August 2016

HEARD AT: Brisbane

PRESIDENT: FY Kingham

ORDER/S:
1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The site value of Lot 12 on SP 192709 in the County of Stanley, Parish of North Brisbane, as at 1 October 2013 is determined at Fifty Million, Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($50,700,000).

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – SITE VALUE – METHOD OF ASSESSING – HYPOTHETICAL SALE CONCEPT – Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld) – where the parties did not agree about the information a hypothetical prudent purchaser could consider in assessing value – whether reference could be made to a development approval for the subject land – whether reference could be made to a lease over an area of the subject land

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – SITE VALUE - METHOD OF ASSESSING – HYPOTHETICAL SALE CONCEPT – Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) – where the appellant contended the hypothetical prudent purchaser’s assessment of value would be affected by planning risk – where the planning risk asserted was the possibility that up to 30% of the land would be required for public open space – whether there was a likelihood the planning authority would impose such a requirement – whether the planning instruments supported such a requirement – whether such a requirement would be enforceable

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – SITE VALUE – METHOD OF ASSESSING – COMPARABLE SALE – Where the parties agreed the sale of an adjacent block of land provided a comparable sale – where the parties agreed the Valuer-General’s post-sale statutory valuation of the comparable property should be the starting point for valuing the subject site – where the appellant proposed a methodology for adjusting the value of the subject site so as to account for planning risk – whether the appellant’s calculation of value should be accepted

Land Valuation Act 2010, s 5(1), s 6, s 7(a), s 17, s 17(1), s 17(2), s 18(1), s 18(2), s 19(1), s 22(2)
Sustainable Planning Act 2009, s 313(3)(b), s 313(5), s 317, s 345(1), s 495(2)(a)

DNRM v Kent Street Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 399, cited
Gold Coast City Council v Dobson (2014) 35 QLCR 279, cited
Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327, cited
Kent Street Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Mines (2008) 29 QLCR 198, cited
PT Limited & Westfield Management Limited v Department of Natural Resources and Mines (2007) 28 QLCR 267, cited

Royal Sydney Golf Club v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1955) 91 CLR 610, cited

Spencer v The Commonwealth [1907] 5 CLR 418, applied

Stubberfield v Valuer-General [1991] 1 Qd R 278, applied

Trust Co of Australia Ltd & Anor v Valuer-General

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brisbane Square Pty Ltd v Valuer-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] QLC 69
Decision Date: 11 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brisbane Square Pty Ltd sought review of a decision by the Valuer-General regarding the valuation of a parcel of land in Queensland. The dispute centred on the method of assessing the site value using the hypothetical sale concept, particularly the information a hypothetical prudent purchaser could consider. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with resolving the disagreement between the parties.

The court had to decide whether the hypothetical prudent purchaser could consider a development approval for the subject land and a lease over an area of the land when assessing value. Additionally, the court examined whether planning risk, specifically the possibility that up to 30% of the land might be required for public open space, could be factored into the value assessment. The appellant argued that the likelihood of such a planning requirement and its enforceability should be considered, but the Valuer-General disagreed.

The court found that the hypothetical prudent purchaser could indeed consider the development approval and the lease when assessing value. However, regarding the planning risk, the court determined that there was no likelihood that the planning authority would impose a requirement for up to 30% of the land to be set aside for public open space. The planning instruments did not support such a requirement, and the court concluded that such a requirement would not be enforceable. Consequently, the court rejected the appellant's proposed methodology for adjusting the value of the subject site to account for the asserted planning risk.

The final orders of the court upheld the Valuer-General's valuation of the land, rejecting the appellant's proposed adjustments. The court determined that the Valuer-General's assessment, which did not account for the alleged planning risk, was the appropriate valuation of the subject site. Brisbane Square Pty Ltd's appeal was dismissed.

Orders