Cooper v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

The case of Cooper v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources involves an appeal against the annual valuation of a property located at 12 The Esplanade, Paradise Point. The appellants, George R and Doreen A Cooper, challenge the valuation of their property at $215,000, arguing that the correct unimproved value should be $170,000. The dispute primarily concerns the comparison of sales, the relativity of the property, the nature of the land, and the method of valuation. The Land Court in Brisbane was tasked with determining whether the valuation was appropriate and whether the appellants had provided sufficient evidence to support their claim.

The key legal issues in this case were whether the method of valuation used by the respondent was appropriate and whether the appellants had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the valuation was excessive. The court had to consider the nature of the land, the method of valuation used by the respondent, the comparison of sales, and the relativity between the subject property and other nearby properties.

The court first considered the nature of the land, noting that while the appellants had concerns about the amount of filling on certain sales and the impact of views from certain sales, the court accepted the respondent's research into the history of the area. The court also noted that while the subject property had a corner location and good views, its smaller size and tapering shape fronted The Esplanade counterbalanced some of its advantages.

The court then examined the method of valuation used by the respondent. While the appellants argued that the use of improved sales and a per square metre basis for comparison was more realistic, the court found that the respondent's method of using sales of vacant land was appropriate. The court noted that the preferred method is to compare the subject with sales of vacant land, but if such sales do not exist, the "summation method" can be used.

The court also considered the comparison of sales and found that the respondent's assumptions in respect of Sales 7 and 8 (his Sales 2 and 1) did not truly represent the general trend in the market for purchasers to acquire improved sites in that area for the purpose of redevelopment. The belated decision by the new owner of Sale 7 raised the question of whether the market was suitable for single residences at $250,000.

Finally, the court examined the matter of relativity between the subject and adjoining lots. The court found that while the unimproved value of Lot 3 may have certain inconsistencies in the respondent's opinion, the appellants were entitled to rely on the valuations of properties in the vicinity of the subject land as being correct.

The court concluded that the appellants had partially proved their case. The appeal was allowed, the determination of the Chief Executive was set aside, and the unimproved value of Lot 2 on RP 78424 was determined at Two hundred and five thousand dollars ($205,000).