Campbell v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

In the Land Court of Brisbane, the case of Campbell v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources involved an appeal against the determination of the unimproved value of two parcels of vacant land by the Chief Executive. The parcels of land, Lots 10 and 11 on RP 95718 in the Parish of Mackenzie, Logan City, were zoned "Rural Residential" and had an area of 7.198 hectares. The Chief Executive had determined the unimproved value of the land to be $288,000 ($40,000 per hectare) as of 1 October 1996, whereas the appellants sought a lower valuation of $226,500. The appellants argued that the valuation was inconsistent with the values of adjoining and comparable lots, particularly Lots 9 and 12, which were valued at $32,300 per hectare.

The central legal issue was whether the Chief Executive's valuation of the land was in line with the unimproved values of comparable lots and if the appellants had discharged the onus of proving the valuation was incorrect. The appellants relied on the principle of relativity, asserting that the subject land should not be valued higher per hectare than the adjoining lots due to similar characteristics and lack of significant changes in subdivisional potential. The court had to determine if the appellants' arguments regarding the relativity of values and the comparability of the lots were sufficient to overturn the Chief Executive's determination.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including historical valuation data and the rationale behind the Chief Executive's valuation. The court found that the subject land had potential for subdivision into one-hectare lots, which was a factor in its valuation. The court also noted that the comparisons made by the appellants were not entirely persuasive given the specific circumstances of the valuation. The court concluded that the appellants had not discharged the onus of proving the valuation was incorrect, as the Chief Executive's valuation was based on the highest and best use of the land, supported by comparable sales evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the Chief Executive's valuation of $288,000 was affirmed.