Dowling v Valuer-General

Case [2023] QLC 1


LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Dowling & Anor v Valuer-General [2023] QLC 1
PARTIES: Alan Reginald Dowling and Noel Edward Dowling

(appellants)

v
Valuer-General
(respondent)
FILE NO: LVA007-22
DIVISION: General
PROCEEDING: Appeal against objection decision on a valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON: 16 January 2023
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: 14 December 2022
HEARD AT: Atherton
MEMBER: PG Stilgoe OAM
ORDERS:

1.     The appeal is dismissed

2.   Any submissions seeking a costs order in this proceeding must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – where the appellant claimed the water licence should not be part of the valuation – where the appellant disagreed with the valuer’s method of assessing the value of the water licence – where the appellant claimed several environmental factors detracted from the value of the land – where the appellant claimed that the Valuer-General wrongly interpreted the comparable sales – where the appellant did not engage a valuer for the hearing

Land Valuation Act 2010, s 33

Beydoun v Valuer-General [2017] QLC 36
Daandine Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Land Tax (1943) 7 The Valuer 299, applied, cited
YFG Shopping Centres Pty Ltd as Tte & Anor v Valuer-General; Shayher Alliance Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General; Leda Commercial Properties Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General; Lipoma Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General; RG Property Three Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer-General [2020] QLC 10, applied

APPEARANCES: A Dowling, the applicant (self-represented)
P Prasad (solicitor), Department of Resources, for the respondent
  1. One of the main attractions for visitors to Yungaburra is platypus sighting at Peterson Creek. The best way to view these elusive monotremes is to take a path across Noel Dowling’s property and onto Alan Dowling’s property at 82 Mather Road, Yungaburra. The Dowling brothers have facilitated access for many years at their own expense. Alan Dowling says that the Valuer General’s 2020 valuation of his property is the last straw; the costs associated with this valuation mean that he will not provide public access to the platypus viewing area.

  1. Mr Dowling’s property is 10.0711 hectares of undulating land close to Yungaburra.   The highest and best use of the land is as a hobby farm/lifestyle farming.[1] His objections to the valuation fall into three broad categories. Firstly, he disagrees with the way the Valuer General dealt with the water licence. Secondly, he says that the environmental aspects of the land – its tendency to collect water from surrounding properties, the bird life, noise from quarry trucks and the effects of the bordering national park – detract from the value of the land. Lastly, Mr Dowling says that the Valuer General has wrongly interpreted the comparable sales.

    [1]Ex 18, [2.8]; Ex 5; T1-75.

The water licence

  1. Mr Dowling says that the water licence attached to the land should not be part of the valuation exercise. If the water licence is…

Continue reading Dowling v Valuer-General

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dowling v Valuer-General [2023] QLC 1
Case
[2023] QLC 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dowling sought to appeal a decision of the Valuer-General which assessed the value of a property in accordance with the Property Law Act. The appellant claimed that the water licence should not be included in the valuation and that the valuer's method of assessing the value of the water licence was incorrect. Dowling also claimed that several environmental factors reduced the value of the land, and that the Valuer-General misinterpreted the comparable sales. The appellant did not engage a valuer for the hearing. The court was required to determine whether the Valuer-General's assessment of the property was correct, and if there were any errors in the valuation process. The court considered the arguments put forward by Dowling, including the claim that the water licence should not be part of the valuation, the assessment of the value of the water licence, the impact of environmental factors on the value of the land, and the interpretation of comparable sales. The court also considered whether Dowling's failure to engage a valuer for the hearing affected the outcome of the appeal.

The court found that the Valuer-General's assessment of the property was correct, and that there were no errors in the valuation process. The court found that the water licence was properly included in the valuation, and that the valuer's method of assessing the value of the water licence was appropriate. The court also found that the environmental factors claimed by Dowling did not detract from the value of the land, and that the Valuer-General's interpretation of the comparable sales was correct. The court noted that Dowling's failure to engage a valuer for the hearing did not affect the outcome of the appeal, as the court was able to consider the arguments put forward by Dowling without the assistance of a valuer. The appeal was dismissed, and any submissions seeking a costs order in this proceeding must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed

2. Any submissions seeking a costs order in this proceeding must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.

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.