Caloundra City Council v McPherson - [2006] QLAC 26

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Caloundra City Council v McPherson and Anor [2006] QLAC 26

PARTIES: Caloundra City Council
(appellant)

v.

Graham E and Judith H McPherson
(respondents)

FILE NO: LAC2005/1214

DIVISION: Land Appeal Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING: An appeal from a decision of the Land Court determining compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of land in the amount of $2,699,000 plus interest

ORIGINATING COURT: Land Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON: 11 May 2006

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Brisbane

JUDGE:
MEMBER Justice Philippides
Mr JJ Trickett, President of the Land Court
Mr RS Jones, Member

ORDERS:
1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal. Such costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS: Practice and Procedure – appeal from decision of Land Court assessing compensation pursuant to the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 – general principles applicable in appeals concerning valuation cases – conduct of the parties in the proceedings below – matters not raised at trial which, if raised, could have been the subject of evidence.

APPEARANCES: Mr M Gynther for the appellant
Mr D Gore QC for the respondents

SOLICITORS: Garland Waddington Solicitors, for the appellant
Griffith Parry Lawyers for the respondent

The Caloundra City Council (the appellant) has appealed against a decision of Mrs MacDonald of the Land Court determining compensation payable by the appellant to Graham McPherson and Judith McPherson (the respondents) in the amount of Two Million, Six Hundred and Ninety-Nine Dollars ($2,699,000) together with interest.

The history of the appeal

By proclamation in the Queensland Government Gazette on 12 December 2003, the appellant resumed from the respondents 73.59 ha of land located at Sunset Drive Meridan Plains, Caloundra. The land is more properly described as Lot 10 on SP 107372, Parish of Bribie, County of Canning. The land was resumed for the purposes of sewerage farm disposal and depot works and parks and recreation.
In circumstances where the parties were unable to agree on the level of compensation, the matter was referred to the Land Court for determination pursuant to the provisions of Acquisition of Land Act 1967.
As initially formulated the respondents claimed compensation in the amount of $2,700,000 plus interest and costs.[1] In the proceedings below, the respondents retained the services of Mr Henderson, an experienced registered valuer. Mr Henderson originally assessed compensation in the amount of $2,640,000, excluding interest and any allowance for disturbance items.[2] However, on becoming aware of some additional sales evidence, Mr Henderson revised his assessment upwards to $3,050,000 exclusive of interest and disturbance. The amount of $3,050,000 was the valuation relied on by the respondents at trial.
[1] Appeal record (AR 382-384).
[2] AR 245.
The appellant retained the services of Mr A Carrick, also an experienced registered valuer. Mr Carrick assessed compensation in the amount of $2,030,000 exclusive of interest and disturbance.[3] This was the figure contended for by the appellant at trial.
[3] AR 385 - 399.
Mr…

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 Caloundra City Council v McPherson 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: [2006] QLAC 26
Decision Date: 11 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Caloundra City Council v McPherson involved an appeal against a decision made by the Land Court regarding the assessment of compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. The appellant, Caloundra City Council, sought to challenge the valuation of land acquired for public purposes. The respondent, McPherson, opposed the appeal and argued that the Land Court's decision should be upheld. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appeal against the Land Court's assessment of compensation should be allowed. This required consideration of the principles governing appeals in valuation cases, as well as the conduct of the parties during the proceedings. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether any matters not raised at the trial, which could have been the subject of evidence, warranted a different outcome. The Court also examined whether the Land Court had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and whether its decision was supported by the evidence presented.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal should be dismissed. The reasoning was that the Land Court had properly considered the evidence and applied the correct legal principles in arriving at its valuation. The Court noted that the appellant had failed to raise certain matters at the trial that could have been pertinent to the assessment of compensation. These matters, if raised, could have potentially led to different evidence being presented. However, as they were not raised, the Court found that it would be inappropriate to allow the appeal based on those unaddressed issues. Furthermore, the Court found that the Land Court's decision was consistent with the statutory requirements and adequately supported by the evidence.

The Court made two orders. First, it dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Land Court. Second, it ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis. This outcome underscores the importance of parties raising all relevant issues during the initial proceedings and the potential consequences of failing to do so in valuation cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal. Such costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

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:	Caloundra City Council v McPherson and Anor [2006] QLAC 26
PARTIES:	Caloundra City Council (appellant)
v.
Graham E and Judith H McPherson (respondents)
FILE NO:	LAC2005/1214
DIVISION:	Land Appeal Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	An appeal from a decision of the Land Court determining compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of land in the amount of $2,699,000 plus interest
ORIGINATING COURT:	Land Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	11 May 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
JUDGE: MEMBER	Justice Philippides Mr JJ Trickett, President of the Land Court Mr RS Jones, Member
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal. Such costs to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	Practice and Procedure – appeal from decision of Land Court assessing compensation pursuant to the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 – general principles applicable in appeals concerning valuation cases – conduct of the parties in the proceedings below – matters not raised at trial which, if raised, could have been the subject of evidence.
APPEARANCES:	Mr M Gynther for the appellant Mr D Gore QC for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Garland Waddington Solicitors, for the appellant Griffith Parry Lawyers for the respondent