Heatham Pty Ltd as Trustee v Valuer-General - [2017] QLC 26

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Heatham Pty Ltd as Trustee v Valuer-General [2017] QLC 26

PARTIES: Heatham Pty Ltd as Trustee
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA014-16

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON: 1 June 2017

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 15 December 2016
Submissions closed 13 March 2017

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: WA Isdale

ORDER/S:
1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The valuation appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – where appellant objects to valuation – where highest and best use of the land is in dispute – where site value is the basis of valuation.

Land Court Act 2000 ss 4, 7, 17-24
Land Valuation Act 2010 ss 169, 170

Adelaide Clinic Holdings Pty Ltd v Minister for Water Resources (1987-88) 65 LGRA
Awad v Twin Creek Properties Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 920
Dr Yvonne Collen Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 60
Edgarhead Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 18
Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 11
ISPT Pty Ltd v Melbourne City Council & Anor 20 VR 447
JL and I Qualischefski & Others v Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 167
Macarthur Central Shopping Centre Pty Ltd as TTE v Valuer-General (No. 2) [2016] QLC 80
Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water (2006) 27 QLCR 64
Surfers Paradise Resort Hotel Pty Limited v Department of Natural Resources and Mines (2007) 28 QLCR 313
NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378
Westerman v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 65

APPEARANCES:
DD Purcell instructed by MinterEllison - Gold Coast for the appellant

JP Hastie instructed by the Crown Solicitor for the respondent

Background

Under the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the Act), the respondent has performed a routine annual valuation of the appellant’s property located at 429 Fairfield Road, Yeronga. The valuation is of the site as at 1 October 2014.

The dispute

The dispute was confined to a disagreement between the appellant’s valuer, Mr Neil Murphy, and the respondent’s valuer, Mr John Groenendyk. They were the only witnesses. Their disagreement was primarily about the highest and best potential use of the land.
The respondent valued the land at $3,800,000 and the appellant contended for a value of $3,000,000. The land, which is Lot 1 on SP 170619, County of Stanley, Parish of Yeerongpilly, has an area of 6,682 m². It is in Brisbane City and, being non-rural land, is valued as a site rather than as unimproved.

The respondent’s position

The respondent’s valuation is based on what could be built on the site and be code accessable under the rules regulating development in the location. Code assessable means that such a development, conforming with the code, may be built as of right, without the need for a process of public advertising, rights of objection or Council approval being required with rights of appeal for objectors.…

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 Heatham Pty Ltd as Trustee 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: [2017] QLC 26
Decision Date: 1 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Heatham Pty Ltd as Trustee, contested the valuation of a parcel of land, appealing to the Queensland Land Court. The dispute centred on the highest and best use of the land, which was pivotal in determining its value under the site value basis of valuation. The Valuer-General's valuation was challenged by the appellant, who argued that it did not accurately reflect the true market value of the property.

The court was required to determine whether the Valuer-General's valuation method correctly identified the highest and best use of the land and whether the valuation reflected the site's true market value. The appellant argued that the valuation did not consider all potential uses of the land, particularly those that could yield higher returns. The court needed to assess whether the Valuer-General's assessment was reasonable and whether the valuation process adhered to relevant legislation and guidelines.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and the Valuer-General's methodology. It considered the evidence of potential land uses, market conditions, and comparable sales. The court concluded that the Valuer-General's assessment was reasonable and that the valuation process was consistent with the legislative framework. The court found that the highest and best use of the land, as determined by the Valuer-General, was appropriately considered and that the valuation reflected the true market value of the property. The appeal was dismissed, and the original valuation was upheld.

Orders