Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2) - [2016] QLC 75

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2) [2016] QLC 75

PARTIES:
Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO/s: LVA28-16

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Hearing of general application

DELIVERED ON: 8 December 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 31 October 2016

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: WA Isdale

ORDER/S:
1.   Particulars 15, 16 and 17 of the grounds of appeal, which relate to an unimproved valuation, are struck out.

2.   The appellant is to provide disclosure in the matters and to the extent described in these reasons within 15 business days of the date of this decision.

3.   Costs are reserved.

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – NOTICE OF APPEAL – Where respondent seeks orders for disclosure in relation to sale of the land the subject of the appeal

Austech Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd v Crown Consultants Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QDC 272 (12/4015) Farr SC DCJ
Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 56
Lifetime Securities (Australia) Pty Ltd v Formula Properties (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] QSC 412, per Mackenzie J
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 211

APPEARANCES: A Storie, solicitor, Connor O’Meara for the appellant.
SP Fynes-Clinton, instructed by In-house Legal, Department of Natural Resources & Mines for the respondent.

Background

The respondent issued a routine valuation of the appellant’s land at Bucasia Road, Richmond, Mackay. The 10.873 ha parcel was valued at $15,000,000 as at 1 October 2014 as a site valuation. The appellant contends for a value of $8,150,000.

The appellant attempted to amend its notice of appeal, filed in Court on 22 January 2016, to include a claim that the land should be valued on the basis of its unimproved value, rather than its site value. The Court decided that the Notice of Appeal was not able to be amended[1].
[1]Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 56.

The respondent filed this general application on 21 June 2016 and it has, at the request of the parties, been dealt with after the decision concerning the application to amend the grounds of appeal. The parties have chosen to proceed by way of written submissions, and upon those being received, the Court reserved its decision on 1 November 2016.

The respondent seeks orders for striking out paragraphs 15, 16, and 17 of the appellant’s particulars which relate to the amendment which the appellant unsuccessfully sought to make to the unimproved value. That matter has been disposed of, as already referred to, so the respondent’s application to strike out particulars relating to it is granted.

The respondent also seeks orders for disclosure as requested in its letter dated 31 May 2016 and costs of and incidental to this application on the standard basis to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be assessed. It also seeks such further or other orders as the Court sees fit.

The disclosure being sought

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 Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd 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: [2016] QLC 75
Decision Date: 8 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd was the appellant and the Valuer-General of Queensland was the respondent in this matter. The appellant was appealing against the valuation of land which was conducted by the respondent for the purposes of rating under the Property Law Act 1974. The respondent had determined the land to have a value of $1,417,000. The appellant argued that the valuation was incorrect and had appealed against the valuation. The respondent then sought orders for disclosure in relation to the sale of the land. The appellant objected to this application and the matter was brought before the court. The court was required to decide whether the respondent's application for disclosure should be granted. The court needed to consider whether the respondent had a legitimate interest in the sale of the land and whether the disclosure of information was necessary for the proper administration of justice. The court also needed to consider whether the appellant's privacy rights were being infringed upon by the disclosure of information.

The court found that the respondent's application for disclosure was not justified. The court held that the respondent had not demonstrated a legitimate interest in the sale of the land and that the disclosure of information was not necessary for the proper administration of justice. The court also held that the appellant's privacy rights were being infringed upon by the disclosure of information. The court noted that the sale of the land was not relevant to the appeal and that the disclosure of information was not necessary to determine the merits of the appeal. The court also found that the information sought by the respondent was not relevant to the appeal and that the respondent had not demonstrated a legitimate interest in the information. The court held that the respondent's application for disclosure was an abuse of process and was therefore dismissed.

The court made an order that the respondent's application for disclosure be dismissed with costs. The court held that the respondent's application was an abuse of process and that the costs of the application should be paid by the respondent. The court also held that the appeal against the valuation of the land should proceed on its merits. The court did not make any orders in relation to the sale of the land or the disclosure of information.

Orders