Farr v Valuer-General - [2012] QLC 64

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Farr v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0064

PARTIES:Christopher Michael Farr and Shelley Dianne Farr
(appellants)
v.

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:LVA450-11
LVA493-12

DIVISION:General Division
PROCEEDING:  Appeals against annual valuations under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:                  20 November 2012
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARD ON:  17 October 2012
HEARD AT:Stanthorpe
MEMBER:Mr WA Isdale

ORDERS:1. The appeals are dismissed.
2.The valuations appealed against are confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: Land Valuation Act 2010, s.169(1) and (3)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, rule 426(1) and (2)
Valuation of Land Act 1944, s.13(7)
The Law Affecting Valuation of Land in Australia, 4^th ed. Alan A Hyam. The Federation Press, 2009
SALES EVIDENCE OF VALUE — COMPARABLE SALES — RELATIVITY — EXPERT EVIDENCE
R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 13
Bignell v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (AV92-65 unreported Land Appeal Court 4 March 1996)
Brisbane City Council v The Valuer-General (1978) 140 CLR 41, 5 QLCR 283
Burnett v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2010] QLC 0057
Cattanach v Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (1962) 9 LGRA 352
G.E. Cominos & Co Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (1996-1997) 16 QLCR 311
Crompton v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 32 LGRA 8
Enright Hendy and Partners Investments Pty Ltd as trustee v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0038
WM and TJ Fischer v The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44
Franklin & Ors v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 181
Gibson v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (V92-64 unreported Land Appeal Court 9 June 1995)
Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327
Lawson v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0027

Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water [2006] 27 QLCR 64
J.L. and I. Qualischefski v Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 167
Thomson v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2007] QLC 0092

N.R. and P.G. Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378

APPEARANCES: Mr Christopher Farr represented himself and Ms Shelley Farr
Ms RH Kirk, lawyer, appeared for the Valuer-General

Background

The appellants are the owners of 4.003 ha of land at 831 Thorndale Road, Glen Aplin. It is described as Lot 21 on Survey Plan 166807 Parish of Marsh.
As required by the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the Act), the Valuer-General valued the land in its unimproved state. As at 1 October 2010 it was valued at $123,000 and $135,000 on 1 October 2011. Valuations were issued in those amounts and the appellants have brought appeals to this Court in respect of both valuations. They contend that the valuations should be $100,000 at both of the valuation dates.
Both appeals were heard together at Stanthorpe on 17 October 2012.

The appellants’ concerns

The appellants contended that the valuation of their land was excessive due to two main issues:
1. The traffic on the road near their northern boundary. Its speed, intensity and the resultant dust from the unsealed surface.
2. The relativity of the valuations of their property with the valuations…

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.

Continue reading Farr v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Farr v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 64
Case: [2012] QLC 64
Decision Date: 20 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Christopher Michael Farr and Shelley Dianne Farr, the owners of 4.003 ha of land in Glen Aplin, Queensland. They appealed against the valuations of their land by the Valuer-General for the years 2010 and 2011, contending that the valuations should be reduced by 19% to $100,000 for each year. The Valuer-General maintained that the valuations were correct. The appellants raised several issues, including the impact of a busy farm access road near their northern boundary and the relativity of their property's valuation with similar properties nearby. The Valuer-General relied on the evidence of a registered valuer, Mr Nathan Hoffman, who assessed the value of the land based on sales evidence and other factors. The Court found that the Valuer-General's approach to valuing the land was in accordance with the Act and relevant authorities, and that the appellants had failed to prove their case. The Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the valuations made by the Valuer-General.

Orders