Govan v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

The case of Govan v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources involved Mr and Mrs Govan appealing against the unimproved valuation of their property in Mt Mowbullan, Wambo Shire. The Governor, as the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources, had assessed the unimproved value of the land at $38,500, which was the outcome of the chief executive’s decision after the owners had lodged an objection. The Govans contended that the valuation was too high and estimated the unimproved value of the land to be $21,500. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the Govans had met the burden of proving that the valuation was unreasonable. The court was also required to determine whether the valuation method used by the department was appropriate and if the valuer had taken all relevant factors into consideration.

The court considered the arguments made by the Govans regarding the lack of sales evidence and the limited residential development in Mt Mowbullan. However, the court found that the valuation method used by the department was appropriate, as it was conducted in accordance with the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The court also found that the valuer, Mr S.L. Hoadley, had taken all relevant factors into consideration, including the physical constraints on access to the homesite area from the street frontage. Although Mr Hoadley agreed that there was a problem with one of the relativity examples provided by the Govans, the court held that this did not undermine the overall valuation. Furthermore, the court noted that the burden of proof was on the Govans to demonstrate that the valuation was unreasonable, which they had not done. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the valuation of the chief executive.

As a result of the court's decision, the Govans' appeal against the unimproved valuation of their property in Mt Mowbullan was dismissed, and the valuation of the chief executive was affirmed. The court held that the Govans had not met the burden of proof in demonstrating that the valuation was unreasonable, and that the valuer had taken all relevant factors into consideration. The decision highlights the importance of meeting the burden of proof when lodging an appeal against a property valuation and the need for property owners to provide substantive evidence to support their claims.