Cousin v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

The Land Court in Brisbane heard an application for a rehearing under section 43 of the Land Act 1962 from Robert and Valerie Cousin, who sought to challenge the Chief Executive, Department of Lands' determination of the unimproved value of their land at 28 Carl Street, Woolloongabba. The valuation was set as of 30 June 1993, and the Chief Executive had assessed the land's value at $195,000, which the Cousins contested. The Court's decision, rendered on 28 July 1995, upheld the Chief Executive's valuation at $185,000 after considering evidence from the Chief Executive's representative, registered valuer Mr. JR Kilgour, who provided a valuation report, sales data, and locality maps. The Cousins, represented by Mr. R. Cousin, argued for a lower value of $144,000 and sought a rehearing on the grounds that the Court's decision did not accurately reflect the evidence and contained factual errors.

The Court identified three specific issues regarding the decision: the description of the improvements on the property, the impact of public housing in the area on the land's amenity, and the effect of noise from the nearby freeway and traffic density on the land's value. The Court acknowledged that the description of the property's improvements in the decision was incorrect, but found this discrepancy immaterial since the land was to be valued as unimproved. Additionally, while the decision recognised the impact of public housing and the noise from the freeway, the Court felt that these factors were adequately considered in determining the land's value.

Given the nature of the errors identified and the fact that a rehearing is generally not appropriate for reconsideration of the evidence, the Court found that the proper recourse for the Cousins was to appeal to the Land Appeal Court. The application for a rehearing was thus refused. The Court's decision emphasised that a rehearing is reserved for cases involving significant errors of substance, such as incorrect evidence, rather than mere disagreements with the evaluation of evidence.