Jensen & Anor as Tte v Valuer-General - [2022] QLC 23

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Jensen & Anor as Tte v Valuer-General [2022] QLC 23

PARTIES: Matthew Ronald Jensen and Stewart Christian Jensen as Tte

(appellants)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA198-21

DIVISION: General

PROCEEDING: General application

DELIVERED ON: 16 December 2022

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed on 7 October 2022

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:
By 4:00pm on Monday, 30 January 2023, the Jensens must file in the Land Court Registry and serve on the Valuer-General its statement of facts and issues which must address the following matters:1.

the alleged error in the issued valuation;a)

the unimproved value of the land which the Jensens says is the correct valuation;b)

the highest and best use of the land;c)

the valuation methodology adopted;d)

a list of comparable sales; ande)

details of any site-specific characteristics, including planning and site constraints that affect valuation.f)

By 4:00pm on Monday, 13 February 2023, the Valuer-General must file in the Land Court Registry and serve on the Jensens its statement of facts and issues in response which must address the following matters:2.

the unimproved value of the land;a)

the highest and best use of the land;b)

the valuation methodology adopted;c)

a list of any sales proposed by the Jensens which are accepted as comparable;d)

a list of any additional sales that were not referred to in the Jensens list which are said to be comparable;e)

details of any site-specific characteristics, including planning and site constraints that were considered in determining the valuation; andf)

detail the reasons for its objection decision in relation to the land.g)

At the hearing, the statements of facts and issues will be the evidence in chief of the author, unless the Court orders otherwise.3.

“Author” means:

For an individual appellant, the appellant or a person nominated in writing by the appellant.a)

For a corporate appellant or the Valuer-General, the person who signed the statement of facts and issues or a person otherwise nominated in writing.b)

The case is listed for a hearing review at 10:00am on Monday, 27 February 2023 in Brisbane. 4.

If a party becomes aware of any circumstances that may prevent them from complying with a direction, they must notify the Land Court Registry and the other party, in writing, as soon as practicable, of the following matters:5.

any direction they cannot or may not be able to comply with;a)

the reason for the anticipated non-compliance; andb)

the party’s proposal to remedy the non-compliance, including any proposed variation to the current directions.c)

Either party may apply for review by giving at least two (2) business days’ written notice to the Land Court Registry and to the other party of:6.

the proposed date for review;a)

the reasons for the request; and the proposed directions.b)

CATCHWORDS:
COURTS AND JUDGES – COURTS – JURISDICTION AND POWERS – whether the applicant’s land is within the Valuer General’s jurisdiction – where…

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 Jensen & Anor as Tte v Valuer-General 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: [2022] QLC 23
Decision Date: 16 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jensen & Anor as Tte v Valuer-General, the applicants, the Jensens, contested the jurisdiction of the Valuer General over their land. The applicants argued that the land was outside the jurisdiction of both the Valuer General and the State of Queensland. The applicants did not claim to be native title holders. The Land Court was tasked with determining the jurisdictional issue and issuing directions for the proceedings.

The court needed to decide whether the applicants' land fell within the jurisdiction of the Valuer General. This involved examining the nature of the applicants' claim and whether it pertained to issues that fell under the Valuer General's statutory jurisdiction. The court also had to consider the implications of the applicants' arguments on the procedural aspects of the case.

The court concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter as the applicants' challenge to the valuation was within the scope of the court's authority. The court issued directions for the parties to file statements of facts and issues addressing specific matters related to the valuation. The court also set a timeline for these submissions and scheduled a hearing for review. The court emphasised the importance of the parties complying with these directions and allowed for potential applications for review.

The court ordered the Jensens to file their statement of facts and issues by a specific deadline, addressing various valuation-related matters. The Valuer General was required to respond within a set timeframe. The court specified that the statements would serve as the evidence in chief unless otherwise ordered. The hearing was set for a particular date, and the court outlined the procedure for any party seeking a review of the directions. The parties were instructed to notify the court if they anticipated any difficulties in complying with the directions and to propose remedies.

Orders

Orders of the court

By 4:00pm on Monday, 30 January 2023, the Jensens must file in the Land Court Registry and serve on the Valuer-General its statement of facts and issues which must address the following matters:1.

the alleged error in the issued valuation;a)

the unimproved value of the land which the Jensens says is the correct valuation;b)

the highest and best use of the land;c)

the valuation methodology adopted;d)

a list of comparable sales; ande)

details of any site-specific characteristics, including planning and site constraints that affect valuation.f)

By 4:00pm on Monday, 13 February 2023, the Valuer-General must file in the Land Court Registry and serve on the Jensens its statement of facts and issues in response which must address the following matters:2.

the unimproved value of the land;a)

the highest and best use of the land;b)

the valuation methodology adopted;c)

a list of any sales proposed by the Jensens which are accepted as comparable;d)

a list of any additional sales that were not referred to in the Jensens list which are said to be comparable;e)

details of any site-specific characteristics, including planning and site constraints that were considered in determining the valuation; andf)

detail the reasons for its objection decision in relation to the land.g)

At the hearing, the statements of facts and issues will be the evidence in chief of the author, unless the Court orders otherwise.3.

“Author” means:

For an individual appellant, the appellant or a person nominated in writing by the appellant.a)

For a corporate appellant or the Valuer-General, the person who signed the statement of facts and issues or a person otherwise nominated in writing.b)

The case is listed for a hearing review at 10:00am on Monday, 27 February 2023 in Brisbane. 4.

If a party becomes aware of any circumstances that may prevent them from complying with a direction, they must notify the Land Court Registry and the other party, in writing, as soon as practicable, of the following matters:5.

any direction they cannot or may not be able to comply with;a)

the reason for the anticipated non-compliance; andb)

the party’s proposal to remedy the non-compliance, including any proposed variation to the current directions.c)

Either party may apply for review by giving at least two (2) business days’ written notice to the Land Court Registry and to the other party of:6.

the proposed date for review;a)

the reasons for the request; and the proposed directions.b)

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Jensen & Anor as Tte v Valuer-General [2022] QLC 23
PARTIES:	Matthew Ronald Jensen and Stewart Christian Jensen as Tte
(appellants)
v
Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO:	LVA198-21
DIVISION:	General
PROCEEDING:	General application
DELIVERED ON:	16 December 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed on 7 October 2022
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers
MEMBER:	PG Stilgoe OAM
ORDERS:	By 4:00pm on Monday, 30 January 2023, the Jensens must file in the Land Court Registry and serve on the Valuer-General its statement of facts and issues which must address the following matters:1. the alleged error in the issued valuation;a) the unimproved value of the land which the Jensens says is the correct valuation;b) the highest and best use of the land;c) the valuation methodology adopted;d) a list of comparable sales; ande) details of any site-specific characteristics, including planning and site constraints that affect valuation.f) By 4:00pm on Monday, 13 February 2023, the Valuer-General must file in the Land Court Registry and serve on the Jensens its statement of facts and issues in response which must address the following matters:2. the unimproved value of the land;a) the highest and best use of the land;b) the valuation methodology adopted;c) a list of any sales proposed by the Jensens which are accepted as comparable;d) a list of any additional sales that were not referred to in the Jensens list which are said to be comparable;e) details of any site-specific characteristics, including planning and site constraints that were considered in determining the valuation; andf) detail the reasons for its objection decision in relation to the land.g) At the hearing, the statements of facts and issues will be the evidence in chief of the author, unless the Court orders otherwise.3. “Author” means: For an individual appellant, the appellant or a person nominated in writing by the appellant.a) For a corporate appellant or the Valuer-General, the person who signed the statement of facts and issues or a person otherwise nominated in writing.b) The case is listed for a hearing review at 10:00am on Monday, 27 February 2023 in Brisbane. 4. If a party becomes aware of any circumstances that may prevent them from complying with a direction, they must notify the Land Court Registry and the other party, in writing, as soon as practicable, of the following matters:5. any direction they cannot or may not be able to comply with;a) the reason for the anticipated non-compliance; andb) the party’s proposal to remedy the non-compliance, including any proposed variation to the current directions.c) Either party may apply for review by giving at least two (2) business days’ written notice to the Land Court Registry and to the other party of:6. the proposed date for review;a) the reasons for the request; and the proposed directions.b)
CATCHWORDS:	COURTS AND JUDGES – COURTS – JURISDICTION AND POWERS – whether the applicant’s land is within the Valuer General’s jurisdiction – where…