Dunning v Valuer-General - [2012] QLC 66

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Dunning v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 66

PARTIES:Barrie John Dunning
(appellant)

v.

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:LVA491-11
DIVISION:General Division
PROCEEDING:  Appeal against annual valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:                  3 December 2012
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARD ON:  8 November 2012
HEARD AT:Toogoolawah
MEMBER:Mr WA Isdale
ORDERS:1.      The appeal is dismissed.
2.The valuation appealed against, that is of $355,000 on 1 October 2010, is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: VALUATION OF LAND ― ANNUAL VALUATION

Land Valuation Act 2010
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Clough v Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70
WM and TJ Fischer v The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44
Mayne Property Development Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (1996-97) 16 QLCR 709
NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378

APPEARANCES: The appellant represented himself
Mr P Prasad, senior lawyer, for the Valuer-General

Background

In accordance with the requirements of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the Act), the Valuer-General valued the land the subject of this appeal as at 1 October 2010. The land was valued as part of a routine process of annual valuations for rating purposes. The valuation arrived at was $355,000 for the 139.5173 ha of rural land being considered. The appellant, dissatisfied with the Valuer-General’s valuation, lodged an appeal to this Court, contending that the correct valuation was $200,000. The land is to be valued in its notionally unimproved state and in accordance with the Act is valued as a single parcel with the concession applicable since it is used for farming. It is composed of two lots, numbered 54 and 87.

Valuation

The value of this land was assessed at $380,000 on 1 October 2009. That valuation took effect on 30 June 2010. The next valuation, assessed as at 1 October 2010, is $355,000, which valuation took effect on 30 June 2011.[1] It became clear in the evidence that the valuation had been reduced to take into account the effect of major flooding which took place in early 2011.
[1] Exhibit 4.
This appeal concerns the valuation made as at 1 October 2010[2] and the grounds of appeal centre on damage to the land by erosion, with a focus on nearby gravel extraction in this context.[3]
[2] Exhibit 1.
[3] Exhibit 1.

The case for the appellant

The appellant’s case consisted of the evidence of one witness, Mr Lindsay H Horswood, a registered valuer and certified practising valuer. Mr Horswood prepared a report which, with its annexures, became Exhibit 2. Mr Horswood gave evidence and was cross-examined.

Mr Horswood’s valuation

Mr Horswood’s report makes very clear, on its cover, in bold across the top of each of the 11 numbered pages and in the text at page 4 that he has valued the land at 1 October 2011, fully a year after the date of the valuation which is the subject of this appeal. Mr Horswood values the land at $185,000 as at 1 October 2011. He pointed out that 7.27 ha of land…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dunning v Valuer-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] QLC 66
Decision Date: 8 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Land Court of Queensland heard an appeal by Barrie John Dunning against the Valuer-General concerning the annual valuation of his rural land under the Land Valuation Act 2010. Dunning contested the Valuer-General's valuation of his 139.5173 ha of farming land, set at $355,000 as at 1 October 2010. He argued that the correct valuation should be $200,000, citing erosion damage due to nearby gravel extraction and the impact of major flooding in early 2011. The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate methodology for determining the land's unimproved value and whether the Valuer-General's valuation process was justified.

The court assessed the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on the sales used for comparison and the method of valuation. Dunning's expert, Mr Horswood, valued the land at $185,000 as at 1 October 2011, but did not provide an opinion on the value as at 1 October 2010. His reliance on a highly improved sale, which was not relevant to the date in question, undermined his credibility. Conversely, the Valuer-General's expert, Mr Clark, provided a detailed valuation report, using four sales to assess the unimproved value of the land, and concluded that the valuation of $355,000 was appropriate. The court found that Mr Clark's valuation was supported by credible evidence and adhered to the established principles of valuation, particularly the preference for sales of unimproved or lightly improved land.

In dismissing Dunning's appeal, the court confirmed the Valuer-General's valuation of $355,000 as at 1 October 2010. The court found that Dunning's evidence did not substantiate his claim that the land should be valued at $200,000, and that the Valuer-General's valuation was adequately supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the Valuer-General's approach was in line with the statutory requirements and judicial precedents, and thus, the appeal was unsuccessful.

Orders