Burke v Valuer-General - [2021] QLAC 3

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Burke & Anor v Valuer-General [2021] QLAC 3

PARTIES:
Peter Thomas Burke
(appellant)

Menora Developments Pty Ltd
ABN 20 123 406 520
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NOs: LAC No LAC007-21
Land Court No LVA048-21

DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:

Land Appeal Court of Queensland

Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland

ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVERED ON:

Land Court of Queensland

25 November 2021

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 8 October 2021

HEARD AT: Brisbane

THE COURT: Boddice J
WA Isdale, Member of the Land Court
JR McNamara, Member of the Land Court

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – where the valuation objection excluded any consideration of site improvement deductions – where the appellants had undertaken site improvements – whether the appellants could have site improvement deductions freshly considered in the Land Court on appeal – where it was held that the Land Valuation Act 2010 did not allow for adding new objection grounds on appeal

Land Court Act 2000 s 7, s 55, s 56, s 57A
Land Valuation Act 2010 s 7, s 8, s 19, s 23, s 38, s 41, s 42, s 43, s 80, s 105, s 113, s 143, s 145, s 151, s 155, s 157, s 169, s 172
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 375

Allesch v Maunz (2003) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40, distinguished
Burke & Anor v Valuer-General [2021] QLC 24, cited
Ivan v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 24, distinguished
Re Coldham; Ex parte Brideson (No 2) (1990) 170 CLR 267; [1990] HCA 36, applied
Townsville City Council & Anor v Department of Main Roads [2006] 1 Qd R 77; [2005] QCA 226, applied
Wakefield & Ors v Commissioner of State Revenue [2019] 3 Qd R 414; [2019] QSC 85, distinguished
YFG Shopping Centres Pty Ltd as Tte & Anor v Valuer-General; Shayher Alliance Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General; Leda Commercial Properties Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General; Lipoma Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General; RG Property Three Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General [2020] QLC 10, cited

APPEARANCES: PT Burke (agent, Menora Developments Pty Ltd) for the appellants
DA Quayle (instructed by In-house Legal, Valuer-General) for the respondent

THE COURT:

Background

The appellants own Lot 910 on plan number SP226193, located at Blackstump Ct, Gilston, City of Gold Coast, QLD, 4211, which has an area of 33.94 ha (“the Land”).

The Valuer-General issued an annual valuation of the Land as at 1 October 2019 of $3,400,000. The previous valuation made on 1 October 2017, was $580,000. The valuation notice was in the form required by s 80 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (“the Act”).

The appellants objected to the new valuation pursuant to s 105(1) of the Act. Consequently, on 3 March 2021, the Valuer-General altered the valuation to $2,650,000.

The Valuer-General’s decision on objection, given under s 151, stated:

“The reason for…

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 Burke v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Burke v Valuer-General [2021] QLAC 3
Case: [2021] QLAC 3
Decision Date: 25 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Burke v Valuer-General, the respondents sought to appeal a valuation objection that had been lodged by the appellants. The respondents argued that the valuation objection excluded any consideration of site improvement deductions, despite the appellants having undertaken improvements to the land. They contended that the Land Court should consider these deductions on appeal. The dispute centred on whether the appellants were entitled to have the site improvement deductions freshly considered under the Land Valuation Act 2010. The court was required to determine if the appellants could add new objection grounds on appeal, and whether the Land Court had the jurisdiction to consider these new grounds.

The court examined the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010 and found that the Act did not permit the addition of new objection grounds on appeal. The court held that the objectors were limited to the grounds of objection specified in the original objection. The appellants' attempt to introduce new grounds of objection regarding site improvement deductions was not permissible under the statutory framework. The court concluded that the appellants' appeal was misconceived as it sought to expand the scope of the objection beyond what was allowed by the Act.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original valuation objection was upheld without consideration of the site improvement deductions. The court's reasoning was grounded in the strict interpretation of the statutory provisions, which did not permit the introduction of new grounds of objection on appeal. The Land Court was not empowered to entertain objections that had not been specified in the initial objection. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory procedures for lodging and considering objections in land valuation matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Burke & Anor v Valuer-General [2021] QLAC 3
PARTIES:	Peter Thomas Burke (appellant) Menora Developments Pty Ltd ABN 20 123 406 520 (appellant)
v
Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NOs:	LAC No LAC007-21 Land Court No LVA048-21
DIVISION: PROCEEDING:	Land Appeal Court of Queensland Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland
ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED ON:	Land Court of Queensland 25 November 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	8 October 2021
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
THE COURT:	Boddice J WA Isdale, Member of the Land Court JR McNamara, Member of the Land Court
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – where the valuation objection excluded any consideration of site improvement deductions – where the appellants had undertaken site improvements – whether the appellants could have site improvement deductions freshly considered in the Land Court on appeal – where it was held that the Land Valuation Act 2010 did not allow for adding new objection grounds on appeal Land Court Act 2000 s 7, s 55, s 56, s 57A Land Valuation Act 2010 s 7, s 8, s 19, s 23, s 38, s 41, s 42, s 43, s 80, s 105, s 113, s 143, s 145, s 151, s 155, s 157, s 169, s 172 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 375 Allesch v Maunz (2003) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40, distinguished Burke & Anor v Valuer-General [2021] QLC 24, cited Ivan v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 24, distinguished Re Coldham; Ex parte Brideson (No 2) (1990) 170 CLR 267; [1990] HCA 36, applied Townsville City Council & Anor v Department of Main Roads [2006] 1 Qd R 77; [2005] QCA 226, applied Wakefield & Ors v Commissioner of State Revenue [2019] 3 Qd R 414; [2019] QSC 85, distinguished YFG Shopping Centres Pty Ltd as Tte & Anor v Valuer-General; Shayher Alliance Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General; Leda Commercial Properties Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General; Lipoma Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General; RG Property Three Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General [2020] QLC 10, cited
APPEARANCES:	PT Burke (agent, Menora Developments Pty Ltd) for the appellants DA Quayle (instructed by In-house Legal, Valuer-General) for the respondent