GPT Re Limited v Valuer-General - [2015] QLC 14

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 14

PARTIES: GPT RE Limited ACN 107 426 504 as responsible entity under instruments 704481554 and 709013845
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA106-14

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Hearing of preliminary application

DELIVERED ON: 13 May 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 10 October 2014

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: PA Smith

ORDERS:
1.     It is declared that, specifically as regards the LVA, GPT is bound by the fact that the statutory valuation of the subject land as at 1 October 2010 was $87,000,000 as determined by the Court.

2.     Save as set out in order 1 hereof, the application is dismissed.

3.     Any party seeking any orders as to costs is to file and serve their submissions by 3 June 2015.

4.     Submissions in response to any submissions seeking orders as to costs are to be filed and served by 24 June 2015.

5.     Any reply to the response submissions is to be filed and served by 4.00pm on 1 July 2015.

CATCHWORDS:
Evidence – Issue Estoppel – Res judicata distinguished – issue must be identified with precision and certainty – consent order not indicative of issues or grounds of appeal determined – issue estoppel found not to arise

Statutory Valuations – annual valuation – site value – Land Court determinations weight may be greater in contested cases-consent order – appeal – earlier statutory valuation does not dictate market re subsequent valuation of same property – statutory exercise-Spencer test – hypothetical sale-bona fide sale-comparable sale

Land Valuation Act 2010, ss 17, 18

Brewer v Brewer (1953) 88 CLR 1
Bignell v Chief Executive, Department of Lands V92-65(2) Unreported, Land Appeal Court, 4 March 1996
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Duncombe & Anor v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 4
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 146 CLR 589
GE Mortgage Solutions Ltd v Whild [2013] VSC 503
Morris v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 78
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
Turner v London Transport Executive [1977] ICR 952

APPEARANCES: Mr RN Traves QC and Mr Lonergan of Counsel for the appellant
Mr SP Fynes-Clinton for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Clayton Utz for the appellant
In-house Legal, Department of Natural Resources and Mines for the respondent

The Application

The respondent, the Valuer-General (VG) made a general application to the Court on 7 August 2014 by which he sought that certain preliminary orders be made.
The orders sought by the VG are as follows:
“(1)An order or determination that the only evidence which is admissible as relevant to the issues in dispute in this appeal is evidence of:
(a)sales asserted to be comparable sales which were not identified in the grounds of appeal in LVA197-12, and where the date of sale is otherwise after 1 October 2010; and

(b)other facts relevant to the valuation of the subject land which first occurred or first existed after 1 October 2010,

being matters which tend to prove or disprove 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read GPT Re Limited v Valuer-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QLC 14
Decision Date: 13 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of GPT Re Limited v Valuer-General, the dispute centred on the statutory valuation of a property for the year 2010-2011 and the subsequent annual valuations. The court was asked to determine whether a previous valuation for a different year could be used to inform the current valuation, and whether the earlier valuation was binding under the principle of issue estoppel. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues were whether the previous valuation could be used to inform the current valuation and whether the earlier valuation was binding under the principle of issue estoppel. The court needed to consider the distinction between issue estoppel and res judicata, and whether a consent order could be indicative of the issues or grounds of appeal determined. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the earlier statutory valuation dictated the market for the subsequent valuation of the same property.

The court held that the earlier valuation did not dictate the market for the subsequent valuation, as each statutory valuation is a distinct exercise and must be determined based on the circumstances at the time of the valuation. The court found that the principle of issue estoppel did not apply as the issue in the earlier proceedings was not identified with precision and certainty. The court also found that a consent order was not indicative of the issues or grounds of appeal determined, and therefore, the earlier valuation was not binding. The court emphasised that each statutory valuation is a distinct exercise and must be determined based on the circumstances at the time of the valuation.

The court made several orders, including that GPT is bound by the fact that the statutory valuation of the subject land as at 1 October 2010 was $87,000,000 as determined by the Court. The application was dismissed in all other respects, and any party seeking any orders as to costs was required to file and serve their submissions by a specified date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is declared that, specifically as regards the LVA, GPT is bound by the fact that the statutory valuation of the subject land as at 1 October 2010 was $87,000,000 as determined by the Court.

2. Save as set out in order 1 hereof, the application is dismissed.

3. Any party seeking any orders as to costs is to file and serve their submissions by 3 June 2015.

4. Submissions in response to any submissions seeking orders as to costs are to be filed and served by 24 June 2015.

5. Any reply to the response submissions is to be filed and served by 4.00pm on 1 July 2015.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 14
PARTIES:	GPT RE Limited ACN 107 426 504 as responsible entity under instruments 704481554 and 709013845 (appellant)
v
Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO:	LVA106-14
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Hearing of preliminary application
DELIVERED ON:	13 May 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	10 October 2014
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	PA Smith
ORDERS:	1. It is declared that, specifically as regards the LVA, GPT is bound by the fact that the statutory valuation of the subject land as at 1 October 2010 was $87,000,000 as determined by the Court. 2. Save as set out in order 1 hereof, the application is dismissed. 3. Any party seeking any orders as to costs is to file and serve their submissions by 3 June 2015. 4. Submissions in response to any submissions seeking orders as to costs are to be filed and served by 24 June 2015. 5. Any reply to the response submissions is to be filed and served by 4.00pm on 1 July 2015.
CATCHWORDS:	Evidence – Issue Estoppel – Res judicata distinguished – issue must be identified with precision and certainty – consent order not indicative of issues or grounds of appeal determined – issue estoppel found not to arise Statutory Valuations – annual valuation – site value – Land Court determinations weight may be greater in contested cases-consent order – appeal – earlier statutory valuation does not dictate market re subsequent valuation of same property – statutory exercise-Spencer test – hypothetical sale-bona fide sale-comparable sale Land Valuation Act 2010, ss 17, 18 Brewer v Brewer (1953) 88 CLR 1 Bignell v Chief Executive, Department of Lands V92-65(2) Unreported, Land Appeal Court, 4 March 1996 Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 Duncombe & Anor v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 4 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 146 CLR 589 GE Mortgage Solutions Ltd v Whild [2013] VSC 503 Morris v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 78 Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 Turner v London Transport Executive [1977] ICR 952
APPEARANCES:	Mr RN Traves QC and Mr Lonergan of Counsel for the appellant Mr SP Fynes-Clinton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Clayton Utz for the appellant In-house Legal, Department of Natural Resources and Mines for the respondent