Gilfuis v Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2005] QLC 54
•11 November 2005
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Gilfuis v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 0054 PARTIES: Patrick Gilfuis
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2005/0432 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Appeal against an annual valuation of land under the Valuation of Land Act1944. DELIVERED ON: 11 November 2005 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER: Mr RS Jones ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Valuation – comparable sales – reliance on relativity with other unimproved values. APPEARANCES: Mr P Gilfuis, in person for the appellant
Mr M Heather (Senior Legal Officer), Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for the respondent
Background
This appeal concerns land located at ….., more properly described as Lot 129 on Registered Plan 198182, Parish of Warner. The land comprises a total area of 657 square metres and is generally of level topography and rectangular shape. Access to the land is via Terry Court, a dual lane cul-de-sac with concrete curbing and channelling. All of the usual urban services and amenities are available. The land is zoned "Residential A" under the town plan for the Council of the Shire of Pine Rivers. Consistent with that zoning the land is being used for residential housing purposes.
The appellant has appealed the respondent's assessment of the unimproved value of the land determined as at 1 October 2004 (effective as at 30 June 2005) in the amount of $127,000. The land was originally given an unimproved value for the relevant date of $128,000 but that valuation was reduced to $127,000 pursuant to section 68 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA). In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant estimated that the unimproved value of the land should be reduced by "up to $30,000".
The appellant represented himself in the appeal. He has no legal or valuation qualifications. The respondent was legally represented by Mr M Heather, Senior Legal Officer employed by the respondent and evidence was given on behalf of the respondent by Mr Larking, a registered real estate valuer also employed by the respondent. Mr Larking has been practicing as a real estate valuer in the state of Queensland for some eleven years.
The Issues in the Appeal
It became reasonably apparent to me during the course of the hearing of this appeal that the dominant complaint by the appellant was a perceived lack of relativity between the unimproved value attributed to his land when compared to the unimproved values attributed to other Residential A lots of a similar size. The reliability of the sales relied on by Mr Larking in determining the unimproved value of the land was also challenged by the appellant.
In support of his "relativity" argument the appellant tended a locality map[1] which identified the five sales relied on by Mr Larking together with a number of markings identifying the unimproved value attributed to lots of a similar size surrounding the subject land. Mr Larking[2] relied on five sales of vacant residential allotments which, generally speaking, were within the same radial distance from the subject land as the numerous properties identified by the appellant. It was Mr Larking's opinion that the unimproved value attributed to the subject land was supported by the five sales and was also consistent with the unimproved value attributed to other Residential A allotments within the same general locality.
[1] Exhibit 4.
[2] Valuation Report, Exhibit 3.
Pursuant to s.33 of the VLA, the appellant has the burden of proving that the valuation appealed against is wrong. Further, pursuant to s.45(4), the burden of proving every ground of the appeal relied on lies with the appellant. It also needs to be borne in mind that the presumption in favour of the correctness of the valuation may be rebutted where it can be shown that the valuations were based on a wrong principle and/or involved a serious error of fact and/or were made by a fundamentally erroneous method: Brisbane City Council v Valuer General (1977-78) 140 CLR 41 at 56-57; G Cominos & Co. Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (1996-97) 16 QLCR 311 at 331-332 (LAC).
The Relativity Argument
As identified by the Land Appeal Court in Gibson Investments Pty Ltd v Valuer General (1978) 5 QLCR 223, as a matter of policy, reasonable property to property relativity within a valuation area is desirable to ensure an equitable distribution of the incidence of rating.[3] However, it is equally well established that the relativity of unimproved values between properties is not fixed but fluid and there could be "… any number of reasons why blocks in the same valuation area should increase at different rates … "[4]
[3]see also H & E Grahn v The Valuer General (unreported decision of the Land Appeal Court dated 20 November 1992).
[4] C & B Henricks v The Valuer General (1983) 9 QLCR 59 at 63.
In my view, there can be little room for doubt that in cases such as this, the primary method for assessing the unimproved value of land ought to be, as far as reasonably practicable, by the application of sales of comparable vacant or lightly improved parcels of land in reasonable proximity to the subject land.[5] In Tow v The Valuer General (1978) 5 QLCR 378 the Land Appeal Court at 381 said:
"It follows that a large increase over and above the previous valuation is in itself not a relevant issue provided bona fide sales of comparable parcels support the new valuation."
In my opinion the same principle applies in respect of relativity. That is, variations in the relativity of values are not in themselves probative evidence of value in circumstances where bona fide comparable sales support the valuation actually assigned to the land in question.
[5]Fischer v The Valuer General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46; Barnwell v The Valuer General (1990) 13 QLCR 13 at 17; Grahn v The Valuer General.
In this case I consider that the appellant unreasonably focused on the unimproved value attributed only to lots of a similar size to the subject. Little or no regard was had to other relevant physical characteristics such as location in a cul de sac, proximity to busy roads and proximity to drainage areas and the like. When factors such as these, together with the actual areas of lots, are taken into account there appears to me to be a reasonably consistent level of relativity between the unimproved value attributed to the subject land and that attributed to other lots in the locality. And, where there are differences in the unimproved values, I accept Mr Larking's explanations for those differences.
The Attack on the Sales Evidence
As identified above, Mr Larking relied on the sales of five vacant residential allotments in the Bray Park area. The appellant was not really in a position to contradict Mr Larking's analysis of the sales or his application of the sales in striking the unimproved value for the subject land. The appellant offered no sales evidence to contradict that relied on by Mr Larking.
It is my view that the sales relied on by Mr Larking provide reliable sales evidence and have been properly analysed and applied. Accordingly, the appellant also fails on this point.
In the circumstances of this appeal the appellant has failed to show that, in striking the unimproved value attributed to the land, the respondent had acted upon a wrong principle or made a serious error of fact or that the valuation was made by a method which was fundamentally erroneous.
For the reasons canvassed above the appeal is dismissed.
R S JONES
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0