Elliott and Kojrowicz v Department of Natural Resources and Water

The applicants, Elliott and Kojrowicz, appealed a decision of the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources and Water regarding the unimproved value of their grazing property, "Highbury," at Aramac. The Chief Executive had valued the property at $706,000 as at 1 October 2005, a figure lower than the applicants' assessment. The dispute was heard in the Queensland Land Court, with the applicants seeking a higher valuation for their property.

The primary issue before the court was the appropriate methodology for determining the unimproved value of the property. The applicants argued that the Chief Executive's valuation was too low and did not properly consider the carrying capacity of the land and the impact of prickly acacia on the land's value. The court had to decide whether the Chief Executive's methodology was correct and whether the valuation was appropriately determined under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the comparison with other sales and selected cases was appropriate and if the carrying capacity and sheep area values were correctly applied.

The court found that the Chief Executive had erred in determining the unimproved value of the property. The court considered the carrying capacity and sheep area values, as well as the impact of prickly acacia, and concluded that these factors warranted a higher valuation. The court also found that the Chief Executive's comparison with other sales and selected cases was not appropriately applied. The court set aside the Chief Executive's valuation and determined the unimproved value of "Highbury" at $991,000 as at 1 October 2005, allowing the appeal.