Conway v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

The Land Court in Brisbane has considered an appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Conway against the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines regarding the annual valuation of their land. The Conways own four grazing properties in the Taroom Shire, which were collectively valued by the respondent at $920,000 or approximately $140 per hectare. The Conways challenged this valuation, arguing that the unimproved value should be $850,000, or approximately $129 per hectare. The court had to determine the correct method of valuation and whether the respondent's valuation was reasonable and justifiable.

The court found that the respondent, Mr. Farrington, had appropriately adopted a direct comparison method of valuation, comparing the subject properties to similar properties in the area. Mr. Conway, on the other hand, had argued for a detailed classification method of valuation, assigning values to each type of country based on comparisons with similar lands in the vicinity. The court acknowledged the merits of both approaches but found that the direct comparison method was more suitable in this case, given the mixed nature of the country and the lack of sufficient sales data for each type of land. Furthermore, the court noted that a hypothetical prudent purchaser would likely adopt a broad-brush approach, rather than a detailed classification method, when purchasing land.

The court concluded that the respondent's valuation was reasonable and justifiable, as Mr. Farrington had made proper comparisons between the sales and the subject lands and had adjusted the overall valuation for working difficulties and stock movement problems. Additionally, the court found that Mr. Farrington's use of the beast area method of valuation confirmed the soundness of his direct comparison valuation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's unimproved value of Nine Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($920,000) as at 1 October 1999 was affirmed.