Franklin v Valuer-General

[2013] QLC 10

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Franklin v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 10

PARTIES:

Maurice Franklin

(Appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

VLA479-10

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDINGS:

Appeal against valuation under the Valuation of Land Act 1944

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

DATE OF HEARING:

21 April 2011

HEARD AT:

Cairns

MEMBER:

His Honour, Mr WL Cochrane

ORDERS:

1.    The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Statutory valuation –– unimproved value – improved land – presumption of correctness – evidentiary onus.

Valuation of Land Act 1944

Pajares v State of Queensland [2003] QLC 0044

Commission of Succession Duties (SA) v Executor Trustee and Agency Co of SA Ltd (1947) 74 CLR 358

APPEARANCES:

Mr M Franklin in person.
Mr P Prasad for the respondent.

Background

1. This is the decision in respect of land located at Boyett Road Mission Beach within the Cassowary Coast Regional Council area of Far North Queensland.  The land is otherwise described as Lot 1 on RP 712557, Parish of Hull, County of Nares and has an area of 64.31 hectares. 

2. The valuation appealed against was at 1 October 2009 effective from 30 June 2010. 

3. The land was initially valued by the respondent at $177,500 and an objection by the appellant against that valuation was allowed and the valuation amended to $170,000. 

4. The amendment to the valuation was based upon the following reasons articulated by the Valuer-General:

   ·     When compared to similar properties, the delegate decided a reduction in the valuation should be made.

   ·     When compared to sale prices of similar properties, the delegate decided a reduction in the valuation should be made. 

   ·     An alteration has been made in the country classification of the property and the valuation has been adjusted.

5. From that decision dated 10 August 2010 the appellant has appealed and in his Notice of Appeal estimates the unimproved value of the subject land as being $24,000.

6. In his notice of appeal the appellant identifies the following grounds of appeal:

   “1.   The unimproved land valuation is not supported by land sales.

   2.The unimproved land valuation does not reflect the physical characteristics of the land or the legal, zoning, or market based constraints on the use of the land.  DERM has failed to adequately inspect or consider this property.  Full attention has not been give to all factors when determining land use.  Small areas and topography, and soil types leaves less than 12 hectares for agriculture.

   3.The valuation is excessive, inequitable, unreasonable, wrong in law and/or contrary to law.  When compared to the Singh properties and others in proximity to this property, the said valuation is, as claimed, since under the Act the valuer is to consider valuations relative to others.  The said land has a long dusty road frontage with constant ingress of weeds.  The power lines restrict farming requirements.  The rear adjoins World Heritage and a vast feral pig population.  Urban sprawl is restrictive to common farming practices.  DERM has failed to adequately (consider) the effects of the 2031 plan and subsequent government…