Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water - [2008] QLC 110

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0110

PARTIES: Peter J Crombie
(appellant)

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)

FILE NO: AV2006/0204

DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division

PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation.

DELIVERED ON: 30 May 2008

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Winton

MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett, President

ORDER: The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Lucella" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Seven Hundred and Eight-Six Thousand Dollars ($786,000).

CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing property at Winton – comparison with determinations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the selected cases – classification of country - carrying capacity – sheep area values – disabilities - Valuation of Land Act 1944

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

This is an appeal by a landowner in the Shire of Winton against the unimproved value applied to his land by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (the Department) under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act).

Background

Mr PJ Crombie is the owner of a grazing property known as "Lucella", containing an area of 6,989 ha, situated about 105 km north-east of Winton on the Olio-Muttaburra Road. As at 1 October 2005, the respondent applied an unimproved value of $880,000, or $125.90/ha, to that property. Mr Elliott appealed to the Land Court against that valuation, stating that his estimate of the unimproved value is $305,000.
The appeal was lodged on his behalf by his agent, Mr A Boyd. The grounds of appeal are wide-ranging but general in 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 was one of a number of cases tried by the fast-track process, following the determination of selected cases, "Bonnie Downs"[1] and "Belmont"[2] in the Shire of Winton. 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] Fawckner v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0036.
[2] Elliott v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0040.

Mr Crombie's Evidence

Mr Crombie gave evidence of the relationship between the selected cases "Bonnie Downs" and "Lucella". He pointed out that on 18 November 2004, the Land Court determined the unimproved value of "Lucella" as at 1 October 2001 at $21.80/ha and the unimproved value of the "Bonnie Downs" aggregation at $21.40/ha. He interpreted that small difference be related to their relative areas, the "Bonnie Downs" aggregation containing an area…

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 110
Case: [2008] QLC 110
Decision Date: 30 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Crombie brought an appeal against the Department of Natural Resources and Water regarding the valuation of their grazing property, "Lucella", situated in Winton. The dispute centred on the unimproved value of the property, specifically as of 1 October 2005, under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The original valuation by the Chief Executive was contested, and Crombie sought a higher valuation. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues involved the assessment of the unimproved value of the property, particularly in light of the comparisons made with the determinations in selected cases. Crombie argued that the Chief Executive's valuation was too low, and the property's unimproved value should be reassessed considering the carrying capacity and classification of the land, as well as the sheep area values. The classification of the country and its carrying capacity were critical to the valuation, and Crombie contended that these factors were not adequately considered in the original valuation. Furthermore, Crombie raised concerns about the comparison with the sales relied upon in the selected cases and the impact of disabilities on the valuation.

The Court of Appeal found that the Chief Executive's valuation did not appropriately account for the carrying capacity and classification of the land, nor did it adequately consider the sheep area values. The comparison with the selected cases was deemed flawed, and the disabilities impacting the property were not appropriately factored into the valuation. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Chief Executive's valuation and determining the unimproved value of "Lucella" as at 1 October 2005 to be Seven Hundred and Eight-Six Thousand Dollars ($786,000).

The Court of Appeal's determination led to a significant adjustment in the valuation of "Lucella". The original valuation by the Chief Executive was deemed insufficient and was replaced with the Court's determination. This decision highlighted the importance of considering the carrying capacity, classification of the land, and sheep area values in the assessment of unimproved value. The Court's ruling ensured that the valuation more accurately reflected the true value of the property.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Lucella" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Seven Hundred and Eight-Six Thousand Dollars ($786,000).

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Crombie v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0110
PARTIES:	Peter J Crombie (appellant)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (respondent)
FILE NO:	AV2006/0204
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland – General Division
PROCEEDING:	An appeal against an annual valuation.
DELIVERED ON:	30 May 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Winton
MEMBER:	Mr JJ Trickett, President
ORDER:	The appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of "Lucella" as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Seven Hundred and Eight-Six Thousand Dollars ($786,000).
CATCHWORDS:	Unimproved value – grazing property at Winton – comparison with determinations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the selected cases – classification of country - carrying capacity – sheep area values – disabilities - Valuation of Land Act 1944
APPEARANCES:	Mr A Boyd, agent, for the appellant. Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent.