Burgess & Hansen v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
Case
•
[2001] QLC 80
•19 July 2001
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Burgess and Hansen v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2001] QLC 80
[2001] QLC 80
19 July 2001
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Burgess & Hansen appealed against the unimproved valuation of their land located fronting the bitumen sealed Wooroora Road, approximately 6.3 km by road south of the Ravenshoe PO. The land was initially assessed by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for an unimproved value of $80,000, which was subsequently reduced to $70,000 after considering the appellants' objection. The appellants believed the valuation to be incorrect and appealed to the Land Court, estimating the value of the land to be $58,000. The grounds for the appeal included the sale of an adjoining lot, the unsuccessful auction of another lot, the glut of land for sale in the area, and the depressed prices.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the unimproved valuation of the land as at 1 October 1998 was correct and if the appellants' evidence was sufficient to prove that the valuation was wrong. The court also had to consider the evidence provided by both parties, and if necessary, determine whether the analysis of the after-date sale required review.
The court found that the sales prior to the date of valuation would have supported the original valuation, as per the evidence provided by the registered valuer, Mr. Paton. The court agreed that the market for the larger blocks may have commenced to decline by the relevant valuation date, but there was no evidence to suggest that these larger blocks are marketed on a strict pro rata area basis. The court also found that Mr. Burgess' revised estimate of value was defective on two bases; it was made as at mid to late 1999 and not as at October 1998, and there was sales evidence within that earlier relevant period to support the higher level of value applied by Mr. Paton.
The appeal was dismissed, and the unimproved valuation of the chief executive affirmed. The court concluded that the appellants had not been able to show that the valuation appealed against was wrong as at 1 October 1998.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the unimproved valuation of the land as at 1 October 1998 was correct and if the appellants' evidence was sufficient to prove that the valuation was wrong. The court also had to consider the evidence provided by both parties, and if necessary, determine whether the analysis of the after-date sale required review.
The court found that the sales prior to the date of valuation would have supported the original valuation, as per the evidence provided by the registered valuer, Mr. Paton. The court agreed that the market for the larger blocks may have commenced to decline by the relevant valuation date, but there was no evidence to suggest that these larger blocks are marketed on a strict pro rata area basis. The court also found that Mr. Burgess' revised estimate of value was defective on two bases; it was made as at mid to late 1999 and not as at October 1998, and there was sales evidence within that earlier relevant period to support the higher level of value applied by Mr. Paton.
The appeal was dismissed, and the unimproved valuation of the chief executive affirmed. The court concluded that the appellants had not been able to show that the valuation appealed against was wrong as at 1 October 1998.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Adverse Possession
-
Market Value
-
Unimproved Value
-
Valuation of Land
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Burgess and Hansen v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2001] QLC 80
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0