ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 3) - [2019] QLC 40

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 3) [2019] QLC 40

PARTIES: ISPT Pty Ltd
ACN 064 041 283
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA024-17

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Appeals under s 155 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 against objection decision

DELIVERED ON: 4 October 2019

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 30 April 2019; 1, 2 & 3 May 2019
Submissions closed 5 July 2019

HEARD AT: Brisbane

ACTING PRESIDENT: WA Isdale

ORDER/S:
1. Appeal LVA024-17 is allowed.

2. The valuation as at 1 October 2015 of Lot 4 on RP 221710 County of Stanley Parish of North Brisbane with an area of 3,365 m², Property ID 1226734 is Thirty-Five Million One Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,195,000).

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – where site value is the basis of valuation – where highest and best use of the land is in dispute – direct comparison of sales is the best method of valuation – usefulness of sales used by valuers

Land Valuation Act 2010 s 7, s 19, s 33, s 155, s 169, s 170

Adelaide Clinic Holdings Pty Ltd v Minister for Water Resources (1988) 65 LGRA 410, applied
Ballow Chambers Limited v Valuer-General (1992–93) 14 QLCR 422, cited
Barber & Ors v Valuer-General (1968–69) 17 LGRA 409, applied
Burnett v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2010] QLC 57, cited
Challenger Property Asset Management Pty Ltd & Anor v Stonnington City Council & Anor [2011] VSC 184, applied
Clough v Valuer-General (1981–82) 8 QLCR 70, applied
Enright Hendy and Partners Investments Pty Ltd as trustee v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 38, cited
Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 11, applied
Finlayson & Anor v Valuer-General (2013) 34 QLCR 101; [2013] QLC 23, applied
Hans and Else Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327, applied
In Adam Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2011] NSWLEC 55, cited
ISPT Pty Ltd v Melbourne City Council [2008] VSCA 180, applied
ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2019] QLC 30, cited
ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2) [2019] QLC 31, cited
Kathryn M & Kenneth E Bullen v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources [1998] QLC 12, cited
Kiddle & Anor v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (1919–1920) 27 CLR 316, 320; [1920] HCA 170, applied
Lawson v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 27, cited
NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378, applied
Stubberfield v The Valuer-General (1988-89) 12 QLCR 328, applied
Valuer-General v Body Corporate for ‘Tennyson Reach’ Community Titles Scheme 39925 [2018] QLAC 7, applied
Valuer-General v In Adam Pty Ltd (2012) 211 LGERA 75; [2012] NSWCA 20, cited
Valuer-General v Queensland Club (1990–91) 13 QLCR 207, cited

APPEARANCES: RJ Anderson QC (instructed by Otto Martiens) for the appellant
SP Fynes-Clinton, with JP Hastie (instructed by Clayton Utz) for the respondent

Background

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 ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 3) 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: [2019] QLC 40
Decision Date: 4 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 3), the dispute arose between ISPT Pty Ltd, the appellant, and the Valuer-General of Queensland, the respondent, concerning the valuation of a parcel of land in Queensland. The central issue was the appropriate method to determine the value of the land, particularly focusing on the highest and best use of the land. ISPT Pty Ltd contested the valuation methodology applied by the Valuer-General, asserting that the chosen method did not accurately reflect the site's true market value.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate valuation method for the land in question. ISPT Pty Ltd argued that the Valuer-General's method did not adequately account for the highest and best use of the land, which they believed should be based on direct comparison with recent sales of similar properties. The court had to decide whether the Valuer-General's valuation method was correct or if ISPT Pty Ltd's proposed method of direct comparison of sales was more appropriate.

The court found in favour of ISPT Pty Ltd, holding that the Valuer-General's method did not appropriately reflect the highest and best use of the land. The court ruled that direct comparison of sales was the best method of valuation in this case, as it provided a more accurate reflection of the land's market value. The court emphasised the importance of considering the direct comparison of sales when the site value is the basis of the valuation, particularly when the highest and best use of the land is in dispute. The court's decision highlighted the necessity for valuers to use the most suitable method to ensure a fair and accurate valuation.

As a result of the court's decision, the Valuer-General was directed to re-evaluate the land's valuation using the method of direct comparison of sales, as advocated by ISPT Pty Ltd. This re-evaluation was to be conducted in a manner that accurately reflected the highest and best use of the land, ensuring a fair and equitable valuation that aligned with market conditions.

Orders