Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water - [2008] QLC 155

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0155
PARTIES:Peter J Crombie and Oenone J Crombie
(appellants)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)

FILE NO:AV2006/0173
DIVISION:Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDING:  An appeal against an annual valuation
DELIVERED ON:                  31 July 2008
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARD AT:Winton
MEMBER:Mr JJ Trickett, President
ORDER:The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of “Pialaway” as at 1 October 2005 is affirmed at Six Hundred and Ninety Thousand Dollars ($690,000).
CATCHWORDS:                  Unimproved value – grazing property in Aramac Shire – relativity with valuations of other properties – direct comparison with determinations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the determination of selected cases – Valuation of Land Act 1944

APPEARANCES: Mr A Boyd, agent, for the appellants
Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent

This is an appeal by landowners in the Shire of Aramac against the unimproved value applied to their land by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (the Department) as at 1 October 2005 under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act).

Background

Mr and Mrs Crombie are the owners of a grazing property known as “Pialaway”, containing an area of 8,336 ha, situated about 116 km north-west of Longreach and about 57 km east of Winton. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $690,000, or $82.77/ha, to that property. The owners appealed against that valuation, stating that their estimate of the unimproved value is $335,000.
The appeal was lodged on their behalf by their agent, Mr A Boyd. The grounds of appeal are wide ranging but of a general nature, essentially contending that the unimproved value is excessive because of the failure by the Department to take into account and make proper allowance for various matters, or to apply the correct principles of valuation.
This appeal was one of a number of cases tried by fast-track hearing, following the determinations of selected cases in the Shires of Aramac and Longreach.[1] The parties agreed that the remaining appeals be determined by confining the evidence to comparisons with the decisions in those cases and to the sales relied upon in arriving at those determinations. However, evidence of the differences between individual properties was also heard.
[1] Elliott v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0009, Pratt v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0063 and Sedgwick v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0066.
“Pialaway” is worked in conjunction with the adjoining property, “Drumlion”, which is also owned by Mr and Mrs Crombie. However, “Pialaway” is situatedin Aramac Shire, while “Drumlion” is in Longreach Shire. Under s. 35 of the Act, the Department is required to make separate valuations of such properties, which otherwise would be included in one valuation.

The evidence for the appellants

Evidence for the appellants was given by 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.

Continue reading Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water

Details

AGLC: Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 155
Case: [2008] QLC 155
Decision Date: 31 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Peter J Crombie and Oenone J Crombie appealed the unimproved value of their grazing property, "Pialaway", applied by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The Crombies argued that the applied value of $82.77/ha was excessive and should be reduced to $20/ha, based on their estimate of the unimproved value. The Land Court of Queensland was tasked with determining the validity of the Crombies' appeal and whether the valuation applied by the Department was excessive.

The key legal issue before the Court was whether the valuation of "Pialaway" was excessive, considering the relativity of the valuation with other nearby properties, such as "Glenullin", and the sales relied upon in the determination of selected cases. The Court had to assess the evidence presented by both parties and determine if the Department's valuation was soundly based and in line with the principles of valuation under the Act.

The Court found that the Crombies' argument for a reduced valuation was not convincing. The Court considered the relativity of the valuation of "Pialaway" with "Glenullin" and found that there was good reason for the valuation of "Glenullin" to be slightly lower than the valuation of "Pialaway". The Court also considered the evidence of the selected cases and sales relied upon in the determination of those cases, and concluded that the valuation applied to "Pialaway" was not excessive.

As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the valuation of "Pialaway" as at 1 October 2005 at Six Hundred and Ninety Thousand Dollars ($690,000).

Orders