Gilliland v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

The case of Gilliland v Chief Executive, Department of Lands, heard in the Land Court in Brisbane on 25 July 1996, involved an appeal against the annual valuation of a parcel of land owned by Mr and Mrs Gilliland. The Chief Executive of the Department of Lands had determined the unimproved value of the land to be $60,000, effective from 30 June 1995. The Gillilands contested this valuation, asserting that the true unimproved value was $45,000. They appealed the Chief Executive's determination, arguing that the valuation did not adequately account for specific disabilities impacting their property. The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the valuation to $52,000.

The legal issues before the court were whether the specific disability, caused by the redirection of water from an adjacent property, warranted a reduction in the unimproved value of the Gillilands' property, and whether the removal of support from the land due to excavation on an adjoining property justified further adjustment to the valuation. The court had to consider the evidence regarding the natural flow of water over the land, the impact of the redirection of water by adjacent properties, and the actual costs incurred by the Gillilands in mitigating these issues.

In its reasoning, the court found that the redirection of water from an adjacent property created a specific disability that had not previously existed. The redirection resulted in a concentration of water flow onto the Gillilands' property, which necessitated additional drainage measures. Although the court acknowledged that a cheaper solution to manage the water flow could have been implemented, it determined that the specific disability warranted an adjustment to the unimproved value. The court decided that a more appropriate allowance for the specific disability was $5,000, considering the cost of lined open channels as an effective yet less expensive method of managing water flow. Furthermore, the court found that while the Gillilands' concern about potential subsidence due to excavation on an adjacent property was understandable, there was insufficient evidence to support the claim of real danger. The council's requirements had been fulfilled, and therefore, no further adjustment to the unimproved value was warranted.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Chief Executive's determination reducing the unimproved value to $52,000, and determined that the unimproved value of the land, effective from 30 June 1995, was $47,000.