Dewberry v Department of Natural Resources and Mines - [2004] QLC 88

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Dewberry v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2004] QLC 0088

PARTIES: Patricia Dewberry
(applicant)

v.

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

FILE NO:

AV2003/0505

DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING: Appeal against annual valuation under Valuation of Land Act 1944

DELIVERED ON: 15 October 2004

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Gladstone

MEMBER Dr NG Divett

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 2 on SP 100337 as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of Seventy-Nine Thousand Dollars ($79,000) is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS: Valuation – Factors in valuation – Access – Changes to access – Local authority duty of care
Relativity – site value – Changes in relativity – Impact of access

APPEARANCES: Mrs P Dewberry appeared on her own behalf
Mr K Fisher for the respondent

Background:

This matter relates to land at 2 Daly Road, Woodstock Estate, Gladstone, and described as Lot 2 on SP 100337, Parish of Tondoon. The subject land has an area of 7.432 hectares, and is located about 12 kilometres south of the Gladstone Post Office. The subject land is a vacant rural residential site, and is zoned as Rural – Non Urban under the Town Plan of the Gladstone City Council of 15 June 1997, effective at the date of valuation of 1 October 2002. Electricity and telephone services are available, and access to the site is limited, and is a key issue in this matter. The key issues are the nature of physical access, relativity and comparison of sales.
In February 2003 the Chief Executive issued a valuation of the subject land at $79,000. Following an objection the Chief Executive confirmed that figure on 1 July 2003. The appellant has now appealed claiming the unimproved value should more properly be $40,000.
Patricia Dewberry appeared and gave evidence on her own behalf. Mr K Fisher, Counsel of Crown Law appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Barend Haks, the departmental registered valuer responsible for determining the valuation.

History of the appeal –

Mrs Dewberry advises that, on advice from her legal representative, and on the land developer's undertaking to provide an all-weather gravelled access along Daly Road from the west, the appellant entered into an unconditional contract to purchase the subject land on 31 July 2000. The land developer had apparently had a previous arrangement with the Gladstone City Council (the Council) to allow for the sealing of the plans of survey by the Council, on the undertaking by the developer to complete any road access works. Mrs Dewberry and her legal advisers were of the understanding that the gravelled road construction of Daly Road was to be completed by 31 August 2000.
However Mrs Dewberry subsequently found that the previous arrangements between the developer and the Council in respect of the acceptance of unsealed roads, was then changed. The Council now refused to accept ongoing responsibility for the maintenance of gravel roads, and now requires all subdivisional roads to…

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 Dewberry v Department of Natural Resources and Mines

Details

AGLC: Dewberry v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2004] QLC 88
Case: [2004] QLC 88
Decision Date: 15 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dewberry filed an appeal against the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, challenging the valuation of a piece of land at Lot 2 on SP 100337, which was determined to be $79,000 by the Chief Executive. The dispute primarily revolved around the factors considered in the valuation, specifically the impact of changes in access to the site and the duty of care owed by the local authorities regarding those changes. The case was heard in the Queensland Land Court, where the appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the Chief Executive's valuation.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Chief Executive appropriately considered the impact of changes to access on the site's value and whether the local authorities had a duty of care that influenced the valuation. Dewberry argued that the Chief Executive failed to adequately account for the changes in access and that the local authorities had a duty to ensure the access was maintained, impacting the site's value. The Department of Natural Resources and Mines contended that the Chief Executive's assessment was fair and that there was no duty of care that necessitated a different valuation.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Chief Executive had properly exercised their discretion in determining the unimproved value of the land. The court held that the Chief Executive had considered all relevant factors, including the changes in access, and that these changes did not significantly alter the site's value. The court also found that the local authorities did not owe a duty of care that would require a different valuation. The court concluded that the Chief Executive's determination was reasonable and did not err in law or in the valuation process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original valuation was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 2 on SP 100337 as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of Seventy-Nine Thousand Dollars ($79,000) is affirmed.

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:	Dewberry v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2004] QLC 0088
PARTIES:	Patricia Dewberry (applicant)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (respondent)
FILE NO:	AV2003/0505
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against annual valuation under Valuation of Land Act 1944
DELIVERED ON:	15 October 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Gladstone
MEMBER	Dr NG Divett
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 2 on SP 100337 as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of Seventy-Nine Thousand Dollars ($79,000) is affirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	Valuation – Factors in valuation – Access – Changes to access – Local authority duty of care Relativity – site value – Changes in relativity – Impact of access
APPEARANCES:	Mrs P Dewberry appeared on her own behalf Mr K Fisher for the respondent