Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water

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).