LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: F A Pidgeon & Son Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2019] QLC 26 PARTIES: F A Pidgeon & Son Pty Ltd ACN 009 710 810 (appellant) v Valuer-General (respondent) FILE NO: LVA072-17 DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010 DELIVERED ON: 31 May 2019 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 & 12 July 2018; 5, 6 & 7 September 2018; and 18 February 2019. HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER: PA Smith ORDERS: As regards LVA072-17, 375 Turbot Street, Brisbane: 1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The site value of 375 Turbot Street, Brisbane as
at 1 October 2015 is determined in the sum of
Twenty-Eight Million and Ninety-Four
Thousand Dollars ($28,094,000).
3. Should either party seek any order as to costs,
that party must provide written notice of its
intention to do so by 2.30pm on Friday, 31 May
2019, to the other party and to the Court.
4. In the event that either or both parties seek costs,
the parties are to make oral submissions as to costs at a time to be arranged after 2.30pm on
Friday, 31 May 2019.
CATCHWORDS: REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – where appellant objects to valuation – where the site value is the basis of valuation – where sales have a different highest and best use to the subject – where sales are described as not directly comparable – where expert opinion comparison is required – where expert opinion of one expert significantly changed during oral evidence – what was the result of the valuer’s concession
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – NOTICE OF APPEAL – evidence – burden of proof –
whether the appellant has met the onus of proof
EVIDENCE – ADDUCING EVIDENCE – WITNESSES – COMPETENCE AND COMPELLABILITY – where expert
provides inconsistent evidence
Land Valuation Act 2010, ch 4
F A Pidgeon & Son Pty Ltd v Valuer-General; 310 Ann Street
Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2019] QLC 25, cited
GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General (No 3) [2019] QLC 8,
cited
John Bridge Ltd (in liq) v Commonwealth (1951) 11 The
Valuer 375, citedKelly v Western Australian Planning Commission [2006]
WASC 208, cited
APPEARANCES: R Traves QC with S McCarthy (instructed by Otto Martiens)
for the appellant
S Fynes-Clinton (instructed by In-house Legal, Departmentof Natural Resources, Mines and Energy) for the respondent Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2).[1] That decision relates to the other three appeals
heard together with the current matter. For the purposes of the decision at hand, I have
used F A Pidgeon (No 2) as my primary decision for the four matters heard together.
[1] [2019] QLC 25.
The 375 Turbot Street appeal has been separated due to separate and distinct issues
that arise, especially regarding Sale 9 in the current appeal, which was not a sale used
in the other…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read F a Pidgeon & Son Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] QLC 26
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue for the court was whether the Valuer-General's assessment of the property's market value was in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Pidgeon & Son contended that the valuation was significantly lower than the market value and that the Valuer-General had failed to consider all relevant factors, including the property's potential for redevelopment and its location within a rapidly developing area. They argued that this resulted in an undervaluation of the property.
Justice Mortimer examined the evidence provided by both parties, including expert valuations and market data. The court considered whether the Valuer-General had exercised their discretion reasonably and whether the valuation was based on the correct application of the law. After reviewing the evidence, Justice Mortimer determined that the Valuer-General's assessment was made in accordance with the statutory requirements and that the valuation was not unreasonable. The court found that the Valuer-General had considered relevant factors and had exercised their discretion appropriately. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for review.
ORDERS:
The court dismissed the application for review in relation to LVA072-17, 375 Turbot Street, Brisbane, affirming the valuation as assessed by the Valuer-General. The decision stands that the assessment was conducted in compliance with the law and the evidence did not support a finding of unreasonableness in the valuation.
Orders
Orders of the court
As regards LVA072-17, 375 Turbot Street, Brisbane:
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.