Forster v Minister for Lands

The matter of Forster v Minister for Lands involved the determination of the unimproved value of a leasehold property situated approximately 16 kilometres west of Charters Towers. The property, known as "Kapunda," consists of about 474.719 hectares and includes Lot 38 on Plan DV 386 and Lots 39 and 44 on Plan DV 37, Parish of Southern Cross, County of Davenport. The lessees, Thomas Robert Forster and Anne Forster, contested the Crown's estimate of the property's unimproved value, which was set at $70,000, arguing that it should be $55,000. The dispute was referred to the Land Court in Brisbane for resolution.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the unimproved value of the leasehold property should be determined based on the site value or the unit of area basis, as argued by the lessees. The lessees contended that the value should be based on the unit of area basis, considering the recent sale of an adjoining property and other comparable sales in the area. They argued that the Crown's valuation included the severed area north of the railway, which was fenced off and not usable for grazing, thus inflating the value. On the other hand, the Crown, represented by Mr. S.B. Gilbert, a registered valuer, argued that the property should be valued based on its site value, considering the residential use potential and the comparable sale of a smaller site in the same locality.

The court considered the arguments from both sides and concluded that the valuation applied by Mr. Gilbert, which was based on the site value, was fair and reasonable. The court acknowledged that in areas where residential use potential dominates grazing use potential, site values tend to become the market yardstick. The court found that the Crown's valuation of $70,000 was appropriate and reflected the market value of the property as a rural-residential site.

The court determined the unimproved value of the subject land to be $70,000, based on its site value. The lessees' appeal was dismissed, and the Crown's valuation was upheld.