BWP Management Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2) - [2018] QLC 30

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: BWP Management Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2) [2018] QLC 30

PARTIES:
BWP Management Ltd
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA037-16

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON: 28 September 2018

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 7 & 8 December 2017
Submissions closed 6 February 2018

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: PA Smith

ORDERs:
1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The valuation appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – where appellant objects to valuation – where the site value is the basis of valuation – consideration of other bulky goods sites including those distant to the locality of the subject – where comparable sales locations are removed from the subject – where sales have a different highest and best use to the subject – where sales are described as not directly comparable – where sales are described as secondary evidence – where there are site and development costs – where expert opinion adjustment is required

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – GROUNDS OF APPEAL – where respondent alleges the appellant has not met the onus of proof – balance of probabilities

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – Bona fide sale – s 18 – Spencer test – whether property was reasonably exposed to the market – how much a hypothetical prudent purchaser would pay for a sale site improved

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – site improved land – whether an uplift is allowable to raise an unimproved site to a site level equivalence so as to be comparable to the site value of the subject – where there are site work costs – whether site works are site improvements within the meaning of s 23 – whether site works are non-site improvements within the meaning of s 24

EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RULING AND FINDINGS – where quantity surveying evidence is required to quantify site works – where quantity surveying evidence is uncontested

EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RULING AND FINDINGS – where valuation experts gave concurrent evidence – whether expert evidence from valuation experts can be relied upon – where a valuer gave conflicting expert evidence in like circumstances including the same sale, valuation date and bulky goods use in a JER for a different valuation appeal – impact on expert evidence in current case

Land Valuation Act 2010 s 18, s 19, s 23, s 24, s 169(3)

BG & AK Wilson v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (1994-5) 15 QLCR 63, applied
Body Corporate for Wendall Court & Anor v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 16, cited
Brisbane City Council v Mio Art Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] 2 Qd R 1, followed
BWP Management Limited v Valuer-General [2017] QLC 56, cited
Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 11,…

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 Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2) 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: [2018] QLC 30
Decision Date: 28 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BWP Management Ltd appealed against a valuation of land, contending that the Valuer-General did not appropriately consider certain factors in determining the site value. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appeal raised issues concerning the proper consideration of comparable sales, the application of the Spencer test, and the allowance of uplifts for site improvements.

The central legal issues were whether the Valuer-General correctly considered comparable sales and if he appropriately applied the Spencer test in determining the market value. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether an uplift was allowable to adjust the unimproved site value to match the site value of the subject property. The court also had to consider the impact of expert evidence from valuation experts, especially given conflicting evidence from one valuer in a similar context.

The Court of Appeal found that the Valuer-General had appropriately considered comparable sales, noting that the sales were distant, had different highest and best uses, and were secondary evidence. The court held that the Spencer test was correctly applied, and the valuation was consistent with the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the valuation was confirmed, with the court finding that the appellant had not met the onus of proof to show that the valuation was incorrect.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal be dismissed and that the valuation appealed against be confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The valuation appealed against is confirmed.

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 Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2) [2018] QLC 30
PARTIES:	BWP Management Ltd (appellant) v Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO:	LVA037-16
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:	28 September 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	7 & 8 December 2017 Submissions closed 6 February 2018
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	PA Smith
ORDERs:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The valuation appealed against is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – where appellant objects to valuation – where the site value is the basis of valuation – consideration of other bulky goods sites including those distant to the locality of the subject – where comparable sales locations are removed from the subject – where sales have a different highest and best use to the subject – where sales are described as not directly comparable – where sales are described as secondary evidence – where there are site and development costs – where expert opinion adjustment is required PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – GROUNDS OF APPEAL – where respondent alleges the appellant has not met the onus of proof – balance of probabilities REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – Bona fide sale – s 18 – Spencer test – whether property was reasonably exposed to the market – how much a hypothetical prudent purchaser would pay for a sale site improved REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – site improved land – whether an uplift is allowable to raise an unimproved site to a site level equivalence so as to be comparable to the site value of the subject – where there are site work costs – whether site works are site improvements within the meaning of s 23 – whether site works are non-site improvements within the meaning of s 24 EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RULING AND FINDINGS – where quantity surveying evidence is required to quantify site works – where quantity surveying evidence is uncontested EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RULING AND FINDINGS – where valuation experts gave concurrent evidence – whether expert evidence from valuation experts can be relied upon – where a valuer gave conflicting expert evidence in like circumstances including the same sale, valuation date and bulky goods use in a JER for a different valuation appeal – impact on expert evidence in current case Land Valuation Act 2010 s 18, s 19, s 23, s 24, s 169(3) BG & AK Wilson v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (1994-5) 15 QLCR 63, applied Body Corporate for Wendall Court & Anor v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 16, cited Brisbane City Council v Mio Art Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] 2 Qd R 1, followed BWP Management Limited v Valuer-General [2017] QLC 56, cited Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 11,…