Finlayson & Anor v Valuer-General - [2013] QLC 23

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Finlayson & Anor v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 23
PARTIES:Lasharn Finlayson and Michael Allt
(appellants)
v.
Valuer-General

(respondent)

FILE NO:LVA637-12
DIVISION:General Division
PROCEEDING:  Appeal against annual valuations under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:                  23 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARD ON:  9 April 2013
HEARD AT:Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr WA Isdale
ORDERS:1.    Appeal allowed.
2.    The Valuer-General’s valuation of 37 Mandalay Street, Fig Tree Pocket, Lot 228 RP 130430 Parish of Indooroopilly, Property ID 1263841 at 1 October 2011 is reduced from One Million One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,150,000) to Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($950,000).

CATCHWORDS: Land Valuation Act 2010, ss 19(1), 169

Sales Evidence of Value ― comparable sales ― Expert Evidence
R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13
Brisbane City Council v The Valuer-General (1978) 140 CLR 41, 5 QLCR 283
Burnett v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2010] QLC 57
Enright Hendy and Partners Investments Pty Ltd as trustee v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 38
Franklin & Ors v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 181
WM and TJ Fischer v The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44
Hans and Else Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327
Lawson v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 27
JL and I Qualischefski v Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 167
NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378

APPEARANCES: Ms L Finlayson appeared for herself and Mr Allt
Mr I Pepper, lawyer, appeared for the Valuer-General

Background

The appellants are the owners of the residence at 37 Mandalay Street, Fig Tree Pocket. The land is Lot 228 on RP130430, Parish of Indooroopilly. The land has an area of 1,017 m² and is zoned for low density residential use in the Brisbane City Plan 2000. There is no dispute between the parties that the highest and best use of this site is for single unit residential purposes.
In accordance with the obligation imposed under the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the Act), the Valuer-General has valued the land as at 1 October 2011. The valuation issued for this land was $1,150,000.

The appeal

The appellants are dissatisfied with this valuation and have appealed to this Court. In the Notice of Appeal, Exhibit 2, they state that the valuation ought correctly to be $768,935. For convenience, this was rounded during the hearing to $769,000. Section 169 of the Act provides that the appeal must be limited to the grounds stated in the notice of appeal and that the appellants have the onus of proof for each of the grounds of appeal.

The evidence

The appellants prepared a written report of their valuation, which became Exhibit 1. Both appellants gave oral evidence and their report was admitted through Ms Finlayson. They jointly authored the report. Ms Finlayson is qualified as a market analyst and Mr Allt is a civil engineer. Neither is qualified as a valuer of real estate but both have experience as purchasers of it. It became clear that Ms Finlayson…

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 Finlayson & Anor v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Finlayson & Anor v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 23
Case: [2013] QLC 23
Decision Date: 23 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard by Isdale, the Member of the Land Court. The appellants, Lasharn Finlayson and Michael Allt, challenged the Valuer-General’s valuation of their property at 37 Mandalay Street, Fig Tree Pocket, Lot 228 RP 130430, Parish of Indooroopilly, Property ID 1263841 as at 1 October 2011. The appellants were dissatisfied with the valuation of $1,150,000 and sought a reduced valuation of $768,935, which was rounded to $769,000 during the hearing. The legal issue before the court was whether the Valuer-General’s valuation was correct or if the appellants’ valuation method was more appropriate. The court found that the Valuer-General’s valuation method was consistent with the precedents governing the conduct of the court, and the appellants’ valuation method could not be preferred. The court accepted the evidence of the registered valuer, Ms McNabb, who had valued the subject land at $950,000 as at 1 October 2011, and allowed the appeal. The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal and reduce the Valuer-General’s valuation of the subject land from $1,150,000 to $950,000.

Orders