GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General (No 2) - [2018] QLC 9

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General (No 2) [2018] QLC 9

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: Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON: 15 May 2018

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON:
22 & 23 February 2016; 23, 24, 25, 27, 30 & 31 January 2017; 1, 2 & 3 February 2017; 24 & 25 May 2017

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: PA Smith

ORDER/S:
1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The site valuation of 123 Eagle Street, Brisbane City (PID 40906821) as at 1 October 2012 is determined in the sum of Seventy Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($70,800,000).

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – where appellant objects to valuation – where the site value is the basis of valuation – where there are constraints on the development potential of the land – whether certain works on the land are site improvements
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – where appellant objects to valuation – where there are sales of other CBD blocks of land in proximity to the valuation date – whether sales are comparable to the subject land
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – CONDUCT OF PARTY OR PROCEEDING – MODEL LITIGANT – whether the respondent acted as a model litigant as regards its analysis of sale evidence – what factors are to be considered
STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – whether use can be made of extrinsic material – whether interstate legislation and case law is of assistance
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – GROUNDS OF APPEAL – whether grounds of appeal are sufficient to support appellant’s contentions
EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES –RULING AND FINDINGS – whether expert evidence should be dismissed on the grounds of impartiality – whether expert evidence from valuation experts can be relied upon

Land valuation Act 2010, s16, s 17, s 18, s 19, s 22, s 23, s 169

101 Collins Street P/L v City of Melbourne; Dinias P/L v City of Melbourne (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Batt J, 2 April 1996) 85, applied
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27, followed
Body Corporate for “147-153 Mary Street Gympie” CTS v Valuer-General (2013) 34 QLCR 298, considered
Brisbane Square Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 69,
Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 11, applied
Buckler v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2011] QLC 7, applied
Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters v Cross (2012) 248 CLR 378, followed
GPT RE Limited (as responsible entity) & Anor v Department of Natural Resources and Water (2009) 30 QLCR 100, considered
Hughes Aircraft Systems Internation v Airservices Australia (1997) 76 FCR 151, considered
Macarthur Central…

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 (No 2) 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: [2018] QLC 9
Decision Date: 15 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General (No 2) involves the appellant, GPT RE Limited, objecting to the valuation of a property located in the central business district of Brisbane. The respondent, the Valuer-General, conducted the valuation for the purposes of a compulsory acquisition under the Queensland Planning and Development Act 2016. The appellant argued that the valuation was incorrect and that the site value was not appropriately determined. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues before the court were whether certain works on the land constituted site improvements, whether sales of other CBD blocks of land in proximity to the valuation date were comparable to the subject land, and whether the Valuer-General had acted as a model litigant in their analysis of the sale evidence. The court was also required to consider whether extrinsic material could be used in interpreting the relevant legislation and whether interstate legislation and case law were of assistance. Additionally, the court examined whether the grounds of appeal were sufficient to support the appellant's contentions and whether expert evidence from the valuation experts should be dismissed due to concerns of impartiality.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the Valuer-General had appropriately considered the constraints on the development potential of the land and had not erred in determining that certain works on the land were not site improvements. Regarding the comparable sales, the court held that the sales of other CBD blocks of land were not sufficiently comparable to the subject land to warrant their inclusion in the valuation. The court also found that the Valuer-General had acted as a model litigant in their analysis of the sale evidence, taking into account all relevant factors. The court considered that extrinsic material could be used to assist in interpreting the relevant legislation, and that interstate legislation and case law were of assistance in the context of this case. The court determined that the grounds of appeal were sufficient to support the appellant's contentions and that the expert evidence from the valuation experts could be relied upon.

The court ultimately allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the valuation of the subject land and remitting the matter to the Valuer-General for a new valuation in accordance with the court's findings. The Valuer-General was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders