Inglis v State of Queensland (No. 2); State of Queensland v Inglis

The parties in this case are Inglis and the State of Queensland. The dispute revolves around the compulsory acquisition of land and the determination of compensation. The case was appealed to the Land Appeal Court. The Inglis parties argued that the Land Court Member did not recognize the additional value of the land due to the adjoining owner's potential interest. They also argued that the Land Court Member erred in accepting the evidence of an adjoining owner's employee regarding the costs associated with realizing the land's potentiality. The State contended that the evidence of its valuer should have been accepted, that a greater allowance should have been made for the risk associated with the potential subdivision of part of the land, and that the amount awarded for disturbance items was excessive. The court had to decide whether the Land Court Member was wrong in rejecting the valuation and whether the Land Court Member erred in not exercising the discretion to limit the interest awarded on the basis of the appellants' delay in claiming compensation.

The court found that the Land Court Member was not wrong in rejecting the valuation as the reliability of the market report indices could not be assessed. The court also found that the Land Court Member was not wrong in not exercising the discretion to limit the interest awarded as the appellants did not unreasonably delay in bringing their claim for compensation. The court concluded that the Land Court Member's findings as to the valuation of the respondent's valuer were findings of fact, not law.

The court dismissed both appeals. The court found that the Land Court Member identified the correct principles to be applied in determining the award for disturbance and that there was no error in his assessment of the evidence. The court also found that the amounts charged for the preparation of the claim were not excessive and that it was appropriate to have reports prepared and settled before the claim was lodged. The court concluded that the Inglis parties' claim was fundamentally the same as the case advanced in the Land Court.