BWP Management Limited v Valuer-General - [2019] QLAC 4

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
BWP Management Limited v Valuer-General [2019] QLAC 4

BWP Management Limited
ACN 082 856 424
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:

LAC005-18

Land Court No LVA037-16

DIVISION:

Land Appeal Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

6 September 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2019

THE COURT:

Mullins J
FY Kingham, President of the Land Court
PG Stilgoe OAM, Member of the Land Court

ORDERS:

The appeal is allowed.1.

The orders made by the Land Court on 28 September 2018 in proceedings LVA037-16 are set aside.2.

Remit proceeding LVA037-16 for hearing by the Land Court before a different Member. 3.

Any submissions seeking a costs order in respect of the appeal must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.4.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – PROOF AND EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF – where the appellant argued the Member at first instance erred in applying the onus of proof under the Land Valuation Act 2010 – where the Court found the Member correctly applied the onus

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – GENERALLY – whether a sale must meet the requirements of s 18 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 to be considered a relevant sale for a comparable sales analysis – where the Court found s 18 does not apply to comparable sales

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where the Member at first instance failed to consider evidence about two sales which he concluded did not meet the requirements of s 18 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 – where one of those sales was considered relevant by both valuers and where the other sale was the first sale relied on by the appellant – where the Court found the Member erred in disregarding relevant evidence and in failing to make findings about the sales

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – whether the Member at first instance erred in making adjustments to comparable sales for the cost of site improvements – where the Court found the Member erred in failing to consider whether the site improvements would have affected the value of the land sold – where the Court found the Member erred in failing to give any or sufficient weight to evidence of the purchaser’s view of the impact on value of the costs of site improvements to a comparable sale

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – whether the Member at first instance erred in the manner in which his Honour analysed sales…

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 BWP Management Limited 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: [2019] QLAC 4
Decision Date: 6 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of BWP Management Limited v Valuer-General, the Court of Appeal reviewed a decision made by the Land Court regarding the valuation of land in Queensland. The central dispute involved the correct application of the Land Valuation Act 2010, particularly concerning the criteria for determining relevant sales for a comparable sales analysis and the adjustments made to these sales for site improvements. The Court of Appeal was tasked with examining whether the Land Court Member correctly applied the onus of proof, disregarded relevant evidence, and made appropriate adjustments to the comparable sales.

The legal issues before the court included the proper application of the onus of proof under the Land Valuation Act 2010, the relevance of sales under section 18, and the appropriate adjustments for site improvements. The court needed to determine if the Land Court Member erred in his application of the Act, his consideration of evidence, and his analysis of the comparable sales.

The Court of Appeal found that the Land Court Member had erred in several respects. Firstly, the Member incorrectly applied the onus of proof by not considering the evidence about two sales that met the requirements of a relevant sale. Secondly, the Member failed to consider whether site improvements would have affected the value of the land sold and did not give sufficient weight to the evidence about the purchaser's view on this matter. Thirdly, the Member's analysis of the sales evidence and his valuation of the subject site were influenced by his errors regarding the application of section 18, leading to an incorrect conclusion. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Land Court's orders were set aside, and the proceedings were remitted for hearing by a different Member.

The court ordered that the appeal was allowed, the orders made by the Land Court were set aside, and the proceedings were to be heard by a different Member. Any submissions for a costs order in respect of the appeal were to be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of the court's reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is allowed.1.

The orders made by the Land Court on 28 September 2018 in proceedings LVA037-16 are set aside.2.

Remit proceeding LVA037-16 for hearing by the Land Court before a different Member. 3.

Any submissions seeking a costs order in respect of the appeal must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.4.

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:	BWP Management Limited v Valuer-General [2019] QLAC 4
BWP Management Limited ACN 082 856 424 (appellant) v Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO:	LAC005-18 Land Court No LVA037-16
DIVISION:	Land Appeal Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland
ORIGINATING COURT:	Land Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	6 September 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 May 2019
THE COURT:	Mullins J FY Kingham, President of the Land Court PG Stilgoe OAM, Member of the Land Court
ORDERS:	The appeal is allowed.1. The orders made by the Land Court on 28 September 2018 in proceedings LVA037-16 are set aside.2. Remit proceeding LVA037-16 for hearing by the Land Court before a different Member. 3. Any submissions seeking a costs order in respect of the appeal must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.4.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – PROOF AND EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF – where the appellant argued the Member at first instance erred in applying the onus of proof under the Land Valuation Act 2010 – where the Court found the Member correctly applied the onus REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – GENERALLY – whether a sale must meet the requirements of s 18 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 to be considered a relevant sale for a comparable sales analysis – where the Court found s 18 does not apply to comparable sales APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where the Member at first instance failed to consider evidence about two sales which he concluded did not meet the requirements of s 18 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 – where one of those sales was considered relevant by both valuers and where the other sale was the first sale relied on by the appellant – where the Court found the Member erred in disregarding relevant evidence and in failing to make findings about the sales APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – whether the Member at first instance erred in making adjustments to comparable sales for the cost of site improvements – where the Court found the Member erred in failing to consider whether the site improvements would have affected the value of the land sold – where the Court found the Member erred in failing to give any or sufficient weight to evidence of the purchaser’s view of the impact on value of the costs of site improvements to a comparable sale APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – whether the Member at first instance erred in the manner in which his Honour analysed sales…