Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer-General

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 56

PARTIES:

Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd
(applicant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:

LVA028-16

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing of general application

DELIVERED ON:

6 October 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

8 September 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

WA Isdale

ORDER:

The general application filed by the appellant on 28 June 2016 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – NOTICE OF APPEAL – where notice of appeal sought to be amended – where there is no power to amend

Land Valuation Act 2010, s 169
Valuation of Land Act 1944
Water Resources Act 1989

Dawson v Department of Natural Resources and Mines (2002-03) 24 QLCR 70.
Franklin & Ors v The Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 181
Gibson Investments Pty Ltd v The Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 223
Molloy v The Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (1938) 59 CLR 608
Pratt v The Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 145.

APPEARANCES:

Mr A Storie, Connor O’Meara, solicitors for the appellant.
Mr S Fynes-Clinton, instructed by in-house legal for the respondent.

Background

1. The respondent has issued a routine valuation of the appellant’s land located in Bucasia Road, Richmond, Mackay.  The land has an area of 10.873 ha and as at 1 October 2014 was valued at $15,000,000 as a site valuation.  The appellant contends for a site valuation of $8,150,000 in its notice of appeal filed in Court on 22 January 2016.

2. The appeal was proceeding towards a hearing when the appellant filed a general application on 28 June 2016.  The respondent has also filed a general application which, the parties agreed, will await the Court’s decision in the matter of the appellant’s general application, which will now be considered.

The general application

1. The appellant seeks leave to file an amended notice of appeal which will include the following ground:

   “Further, or in the alternative, the value of the land for the purposes of the Land Valuation Act 2010 is its unimproved value, rather than its site value.”

2. The respondent opposes this so the question to be resolved by the Court is whether the appellant can be given leave to file an amended notice of appeal.  The respondent, although contending that this cannot occur, is a model litigant and takes the position that if leave can be given then it does not oppose the leave sought.

The appellant’s submissions

1. The appellant refers to s 169(1) of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (LVA). It is in the following form:

   “The hearing must be limited to the grounds stated in the valuation appeal notice.”

2. The appellant submitted that neither the Land Court Act 2000 nor the Land Court Rules 2000 provide for the amendment of proceedings before the Court.  Due to Rule 4 of the Land Court Rules 2000, it was submitted that the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) would apply.  Rule 4 provides that:

   “4 Application of Uniform Civil Procedure…