Haines v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

Victor G and Janet P Haines appealed against the annual valuation of their land, Lots 15 and 16 on registered plan 11414, Parish of Drayton, County of Aubigny. The appeal was heard in the absence of the appellants, as Mr Haines cited family reasons for his inability to attend. The property, situated at 62-64 Panorama Crescent, Prince Henry Heights, is 1465 m² in area and slopes moderately to steeply from the western corner to the eastern boundary. It offers range views to the south-east, albeit slightly restricted by trees. The land was used for residential purposes and improved with a single dwelling house at the relevant time. The appeal centred on the valuation of $67,000, conducted under Section 17 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, and dated as at 1 October 1998.

The court was required to determine whether the valuation was appropriately conducted, taking into account the appellants' arguments regarding the comparability of sales and the impact of factors such as views, area, and street frontage. Mr Haines' submission, admitted as exhibit 4, provided a detailed analysis of comparable sales and further comparisons to existing valuations. The court found Mr Haines' approach to the analysis of views and area to be of limited assistance, as it did not account for the nuances in desirability or usability of properties. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the large street frontage and consequent lack of depth of the subject land detracted from its value, instead finding that the property's extensive street frontage was, at worst, a neutral factor.

The court found Mr Janke, the valuer called on behalf of the respondent, to be an impressive and experienced witness. His evidence was detailed, reasonable, and convincing, addressing the issues raised by the appellants. The court accepted Mr Janke's evidence that the presence of a sewerage main running parallel to the boundary with Lot 17 was a negative factor but adequately reflected in the valuation. Consequently, the court concluded that the valuation was appropriately conducted and dismissed the appeal, concurring in the value of $67,000.