LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Duncombe & Anor v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 4 PARTIES: Joseph Lawrence Duncombe and Margaret Ann Duncombe
(appellants)v Valuer-General
(respondent)FILE NO: LVA353-12 DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010 DELIVERED ON: 13 February 2015 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: 20 August 2014 HEARD AT: Charters Towers MEMBER: PA Smith ORDER: 1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The unimproved value of the subject property is fixed in the sum of Two Million, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,100,000) as at 1 October 2011.
CATCHWORDS: Valuation – appeal against annual valuation – relevant sales
Valuation – valuation methodology – whether sales meet the “Spencer test”
Valuation – enquiries by valuer – weight to be given to enquiries made by others and adopted by valuer
Valuation – carrying capacity – use as a check methodLand Valuation Act 2010
Land Court Act 2000Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways, S.A. (1973) 32 LGRA 170
Callcott v Chief Exeuctive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines Unreported, Land Court of Queensland, 28 September 2011, AV00-620
Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 11
Fenton Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (1981) 47 LGRA 71
Mayne Property Development Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (1996-1997) 17 QLCR 709
Donald Neil Meiers and Florence Myrtle Meiers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 19
Micaesea Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2004] QLC 0079
Nimmo v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 0028
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 12APPEARANCES: Mr JC Duncombe representing himself and his wife MA Duncombe
Mr PS Prasad, legal officer, In-house legal, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for the respondent
Background
This is an appeal by Joseph Lawrence Duncombe and Margaret Ann Duncombe (the appellants) against a determination by the Valuer-General (the respondent) of the unimproved value of the appellants’ property known as Clarke Hills as at 1 October 2011. Pursuant to the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (LVA), the respondent initially valued the appellants’ land at $2,500,000.
By letter dated 4 July 2014 the respondent, in accordance with the provisions of s 163 of the LVA, reduced the valuation of Clarke Hills to $2,300,000.[1]
[1] See Ex 5.
By their notice of appeal, the appellants contended for an unimproved value of Clarke Hills of $1,000,000 as at 1 October 2011. However, during the course of the hearing, the appellants revised their estimated of valuation to “somewhere slightly less than $2 million”. [2]
[2] T 1-51 line 47.
Clarke Hills is a rural property. Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of the LVA, Clarke Hills has been valued as unimproved land.
The subject land
Clarke Hills is situated about 249 km by road north-west of Charters Towers. The road access is 107 km of bitumen on the Flinders Highway to Pentland, followed by 142 km of mostly gravel road. The access…
Continue reading Duncombe v Valuer-General
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Duncombe & Anor v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 4
- Case
- [2015] QLC 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the valuer had failed to adequately apply the Spencer test to the relevant sales, resulting in an inappropriate selection of comparable sales. The court held that the valuer did not sufficiently consider the relevance of the sales in relation to the subject property. Furthermore, the court noted that the valuer had given undue weight to enquiries made by others without conducting independent verification. The court also determined that the use of carrying capacity as a check method was not appropriate in this context. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the valuation was not conducted in accordance with the statutory requirements.
As a result, the appeal was allowed. The unimproved value of the subject property was fixed in the sum of Two Million, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,100,000) as at 1 October 2011. This decision highlights the importance of rigorous application of valuation principles and the necessity for valuers to conduct independent verification of information used in their assessments.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The unimproved value of the subject property is fixed in the sum of Two Million, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,100,000) as at 1 October 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.