Domelow v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

Case

[1998] QLC 34

13 March 1998


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Domelow v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources [1998] QLC 34 [1998] QLC 34 13 March 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Geoffrey and Janis Domelow appeal against the valuation of their property located at 40 Koola Drive, Nerang. The property is described as Lot 249 on RP 155677 and has an area of 1,690 m². The Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, issued a valuation of the subject at $80,000, which the appellants contest, arguing it should be $55,000. The key issues are the large increase in the valuation, the impact of a proposed traffic roundabout, and the static nature of the property market.

The appellants argue that the recent large increase in the valuation is inconsistent with their personal observation of the property market in that area, which they claim has been static or even fallen by 10% over the last year. They also claim that the proposed traffic roundabout will have a significant negative impact on the amenity of the property. The respondent argues that the valuation is supported by bona fide sales of comparable parcels and that it is too premature to consider the impact of the roundabout.

The court found that the large percentage change in the valuation was not a relevant issue if bona fide sales of comparable parcels supported the new valuation. The court also rejected the "offer to sell" as proof of a declining market. The court found that it was too premature to make any conclusions about the impact of the roundabout, and that the proposed roadworks would not adversely affect the valuation of the subject. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the valuation by the Chief Executive at $80,000.

The court found that the onus to prove their case fell entirely upon the appellants, and that unless they proved that the valuation had been determined by an incorrect procedure or that there had been an error of fact, the valuation shall stand. The court found that the appellants had not proved their case.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Property Law

Legal Concepts

  • Adverse Possession

  • Appeal

  • Compensatory Damages

  • Valuation of Land

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0