Ivan v Valuer-General - [2013] QLC 24

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Ivan v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 24
PARTIES:Zoltan Ivan
(appellant)
v.
Valuer-General

(respondent)

FILE NO:LVA880-12
DIVISION:General Division
PROCEEDING:  Appeal against annual valuations under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:                  23 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARD ON:  11 April 2013
HEARD AT:Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr WA Isdale
ORDERS:1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2.    The valuation appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: Land Valuation Act 2010, ss 169 and 170

Sales Evidence of Value ― comparable sales ― Expert Evidence ― Relativity
R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13
Brisbane City Council v The Valuer General (1978) 140 CLR 41, 5 QLCR 283
WM and TJ Fischer v The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44
Hans and Else Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327
Hoeg v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2009] QLC 26
J.L. and I. Qualischefski v Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 167
N.R. and P.G. Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378

APPEARANCES: Mr Zoltan Ivan represented himself
Mr I Pepper, lawyer, appeared for the respondent

Background

The appellant is the owner of 368 Montague Road, West End, Brisbane. It is described as Lot 1 on SP 185487, County of Stanley, Parish of South Brisbane. It has an area of 816 square metres and is located in a Character Residential and Demolition Control area. The parties agree that as at the date of valuation, 1 October 2011, the highest and best use of the land is for a single unit dwelling house, the definition of which would allow a duplex to be constructed on the land.

The locale

The property is located about 3 radial kilometres south-west of the Brisbane General Post Office (GPO), in the inner suburb of West End. There is a bus stop outside the property and Montague Road has a mixture of commercial, industrial, retail and residential uses. The usual urban services, power, water, gas, sewer, stormwater drainage and telecommunications are available.

A view was conducted

On the morning of the hearing the Court, at the request of the appellant, conducted a view of the subject land and other properties as agreed between the appellant and the lawyer for the respondent.

The evidence

The appellant gave evidence and provided further written material in support of his contentions. This became Exhibit 3. The respondent called evidence from registered valuer Mr BP Hart who also prepared a report.

The relative positions of the parties

In his Notice of Appeal, Exhibit 1, the appellant contended for a site value of $680,000. In the course of the hearing this was varied to $774,000. The Valuer-General supported the issued valuation of $900,000.

The case for the appellant

Mr Ivan prepared a folder of material, which became Exhibit 2, and gave oral evidence. His appeal is essentially based on the central ground that the valuation of this property is out of line with the valuations of other properties in the surrounding area. Mr Ivan conceded that he is not qualified as…

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.

Continue reading Ivan v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Ivan v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 24
Case: [2013] QLC 24
Decision Date: 23 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zoltan Ivan, the owner of a property at 368 Montague Road, West End, Brisbane, appealed the valuation of his land conducted by the Valuer-General. The subject land is 816 square metres and zoned for Character Residential and Demolition Control. The parties agreed that the highest and best use of the land was for a single unit dwelling house. The appellant contested the valuation of $900,000 and proposed a value of $774,000, arguing that it was out of line with other properties in the surrounding area. The Valuer-General defended the valuation, calling upon the evidence of a registered valuer, Mr BP Hart.

The legal issues in this case were whether the appellant had discharged the onus of proving that the valuation was incorrect and whether the valuer's method and evidence were appropriate. The court considered the principle of relativity, the method of direct comparison of sales with the subject land, and the requirement for the appellant to produce expert evidence to support his appeal.

The court found that the appellant had not discharged his onus of proving that the valuation was incorrect. The evidence of the expert valuer, Mr Hart, was accepted as it was not contradicted and no material error of fact or principle was demonstrated. The court upheld the method of direct comparison with sales of vacant or lightly improved land, as it was the best basis for assessment of unimproved value, in accordance with higher court decisions. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the valuation of $900,000 as appealed against.

The final orders were that the appeal is dismissed, and the valuation appealed against is confirmed.

Orders