Goodwin v Valuer-General - [2011] QLC 27

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Goodwin v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 0027

PARTIES:Thomas Goodwin and Sylvia Enid Goodwin
(Appellants)
v.
Valuer-General

(Respondent)

FILE NO:VLA192-10
DIVISION:General Division
PROCEEDING:  Appeal against annual valuation under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 which applies due to s.269 of the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:                  19 April 2011
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARD ON:  24 March 2011
HEARD AT:Toowoomba
MEMBER:His Honour Mr WA Isdale

ORDER/S:1. The appeal is dismissed.
2.The valuation appealed against is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS: Valuation of Land Act 1944, s.33
Land Court Act 2000, s.7
Presumption of correctness of valuation – sales evidence – comparable sales – relativity – expert evidence
Goodwin v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2009] QLC 0171
JL and I Qualischefski & Ors v Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 167
NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378
Hans and Else Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327
Brisbane City Council v The Valuer-General (1978) 140 CLR 41, 5 QLCR 283
WM and TJ Fischer v The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44
R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13
Thomson v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2007] QLC 92

APPEARANCES: Mr Thomas Goodwin represented himself and Sylvia Goodwin
Mr J O’Rourke, solicitor and principal legal officer, Department of Environment and Resource Management, for the Respondent

The appeal

The appellants own Lot 1 on Survey Plan 192320, Parish of Laidley. It is a freehold tenure over an area of 10,990 m². As required by the Valuation of Land Act 1944, the Valuer-General valued it, as at 1 October 2009 as having an unimproved value of $105,000.
The appellants have appealed to this Court, contending that the valuation should be less. In the Notice of Appeal, exhibit 1, a figure of $84,000 is stated as the correct value and in the written material submitted by the appellants for the purposes of the hearing a value of $72,000 is contended for. This material became exhibit 2.
The bases of the appeal are the appellants’ contention that the land has not been compared to similar properties; that there was not a proper reduction allowed for the land’s disabilities due to seasonal flooding and the consequent effects of damage to fencing and the intrusions of wandering stock, which churn up wet ground.

The evidence of the appellants

The legal representative of the Valuer-General objected to exhibit 2 being admitted into evidence as it contains some hearsay material of Mr Goodwin’s consultation with neighbours and was provided after the date upon which it was due to be filed and served.
The Court is conscious of the need to resolve the real dispute between the parties and that in many, if not most cases, this will be assisted by allowing material to be brought before the Court for consideration rather than excluding it. In addition, since the Court is not bound by the rules of evidence[1] hearsay material may be admitted, though of course the…

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 Goodwin v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Goodwin v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 27
Case: [2011] QLC 27
Decision Date: 19 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Goodwin v Valuer-General, the appellants, Thomas Goodwin and Sylvia Enid Goodwin, challenged the valuation of their property under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The Valuer-General had assessed the unimproved value of the property at $105,000, a figure the appellants sought to reduce significantly. The parties disputed the comparability of sales used in the valuation and the impact of the property's susceptibility to seasonal flooding.

The central legal issues revolved around the presumption of correctness of the valuation under the Act, the weight to be given to sales evidence versus relativity, and whether the appellants could rebut the presumption of correctness by demonstrating a serious error in the valuation process. The court was required to determine if the Valuer-General's valuation was correct and whether the appellants had provided sufficient evidence to challenge it.

The Land Court, in its reasoning, noted that the use of sales evidence in valuation is well established and preferable to relativity alone, as per various judicial precedents. The court found that the Valuer-General's expert evidence demonstrated valid comparisons between the subject property and the sales used. The appellants failed to provide evidence from a suitably qualified expert to counter the Valuer-General's expert, nor did they demonstrate a significant factual or legal error in the valuation. The court concluded that the presumption of correctness under the Act had not been rebutted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the valuation.

The court's final orders dismissed the appeal and affirmed the valuation of $105,000 for the property. The court also recommended that the Valuer-General consider correcting any inconsistencies in relativities as previously suggested.

Orders