Harris v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

The appellants, Mr John P Harris and Mr John H Harris, appealed against the valuations of their unimproved lands in the Shire of Esk, as determined by the respondent, the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources. Mr JP Harris owned 108.5 hectares of land in the Parishes of North and Sahl, while Mr JH Harris owned 494.2 hectares in the Parish of Sahl. The land was primarily used for beef cattle grazing and was valued separately despite being worked as a family enterprise. The appellants contested the valuations determined under the Valuation of Land Act 1944, arguing that the increases in valuations since 1992 were not justified by recent sales in the area and that the poor access to their properties had not been adequately considered.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had acted upon a wrong principle, made a serious error of fact, or used a fundamentally erroneous method in determining the valuations, thereby rebutting the statutory presumption of correctness under section 33 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The court needed to consider whether the valuation method used by the respondent, which involved comparing the subject lands with sales of comparable properties, was appropriate, and whether the appellants had provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness.

The court found that the respondent had not acted upon a wrong principle or made a serious error of fact in determining the valuations. The evidence presented by the respondent, Mr EG Ridley, demonstrated that the valuations were based on comparable sales for primary production purposes, which were not influenced by the higher values attributable to rural residential lands. The court considered the principle of relativity and the importance of maintaining correct relativity in rating valuations, but also recognised that the principle of relativity should not be preferred to the exclusion of relevant sales evidence. The court found that Mr Ridley had correctly applied the principle in selecting sales evidence and that the appellants had not provided any sales of comparable lands to refute those presented by Mr Ridley. Consequently, the court concluded that the appellants had not rebutted the statutory presumption of correctness, and the appeals were dismissed. The valuations determined by the respondent were affirmed.

In conclusion, the court dismissed both appeals and affirmed the valuations of $190,000 for the land owned by Mr JH Harris and $97,000 for the land owned by Mr JP Harris.