Jensen v Valuer-General - [2025] QCA 102

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jensen v Valuer-General [2025] QCA 102

PARTIES:

STEWART CHRISTIAN JENSEN
(first applicant)
MATTHEW RONALD JENSEN
(second applicant)
v
VALUER-GENERAL
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 475 of 2025
LAC No 4 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Land Court Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Appeal Court at Cairns – [2024] QLAC 3 (Henry J, Members Isdale and McNamara)

DELIVERED ON:

13 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 May 2025

JUDGES:

Boddice and Bradley JJA and Kelly J

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal is granted.

2.   The appeal is dismissed.

3.   The applicants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – VALUERS-GENERAL – where the applicants are owners of rural land – where the respondent assessed the unimproved valuation of that land in 2020, at $640,000 – where the applicants lodged an objection – where the objection was not allowed by the respondent – where the applicants appealed against the objection decision to the Land Court – where the Land Court allowed the appeal and made a determination that the unimproved value was $615,000 – where the Land Court ordered that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs – where the applicants appealed both decisions of the Land Court to the Land Appeal Court – where the Land Appeal Court allowed the appeal in respect of the unimproved value, substituting an unimproved value of $600,000 – where the Land Appeal Court dismissed the appeal as to costs – where the Land Appeal Court ordered that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of each appeal – where the applicants appeal the order of the Land Appeal Court that the unimproved value of their land was $600,000 – whether the Land Appeal Court erred in its determination of what is the highest and best use of the land – whether the Land Appeal Court erred in its determination of what was the most relevant comparable sale in arriving at the unimproved valuation of $600,000

Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld), s 7, s 17, s 18

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied

COUNSEL:

The second applicant appeared on his own behalf, and on behalf of the first applicant
J M Horton KC, with H Stephanos, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The second applicant appeared on his own behalf, and on behalf of the first applicant
Clayton Utz for the respondent

BODDICE JA: The applicants are the owners of rural land located near Lake Tinaroo, in Far North Queensland. The respondent assessed the unimproved valuation of that land in 2020, at $640,000.
The applicants lodged an objection. The objection was not allowed by the respondent.
The applicants appealed against the objection decision to the Land Court of Queensland (Land Court). That appeal was allowed. A determination was made that the unimproved value was $615,000.
Notwithstanding that success, the Land Court ordered that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental…

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 Jensen v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Jensen v Valuer-General [2025] QCA 102
Case: [2025] QCA 102
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, owners of rural land, appealed against a valuation of their property by the respondent, the Valuer-General, which assessed the unimproved valuation of their land at $640,000. The applicants objected to this valuation, and subsequently appealed the decision of the Land Court which upheld the valuation at $615,000. The Land Appeal Court then reduced this valuation to $600,000. The applicants sought leave to appeal the Land Appeal Court's determination, arguing that the court had erred in its assessment of the highest and best use of the land and the comparable sale used to determine the valuation. The central issue was whether the Land Appeal Court made errors in determining the highest and best use of the land and the most relevant comparable sale, leading to an incorrect valuation.

The court noted that the Land Appeal Court found no error in the Land Court's consideration of the expert valuer’s evidence and that the Land Court had properly recognised deficiencies in the valuer’s report but had correctly considered the comparable sales. The Land Appeal Court made a finding that the Land Court had erred by allowing for a rise in the value of the land in one of the comparable sales, contrary to the valuer’s opinion that the market had remained steady. It was this error that led to the Land Appeal Court reducing the valuation to $600,000. The applicants argued that the Land Appeal Court erred in determining the highest and best use of the land as rural residential, however, the court found no such error. The applicants also argued that the Land Court’s decision was affected by apprehended bias, which the Land Appeal Court rejected.

The court found that the applicants had not established an error of law or jurisdiction that warranted appellate intervention. The court granted leave to appeal, noting the minimal delay in filing the notice of appeal, but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the Land Appeal Court did not err in its determination. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The applicants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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

After noting that valuation is not a science and that the court must not act as a third valuer, the Land Court found that as there was error, it was necessary to reduce or increase the valuation to the amount considered necessary. The Land Court assessed the value of the applicants’ land at $615,000.Land Appeal Court decision The Land Appeal Court recorded that the appeal was a re-hearing on the record of the proceeding below and that it was not to intervene unless it first concluded that there was some factual, legal or discretionary error in the decision of the Land Court. The Land Appeal Court found that no error had been demonstrated in the Land Court’s reliance upon the evidence of the expert valuer. The Land Court properly recognised deficiencies in that valuer’s report, but had regard to the valuer’s evidence of comparable sales, when considering whether it was necessary to reduce or increase the valuation to correctly make the valuation under the Act. The Land Appeal Court further held that subject to one matter, the Land Court had correctly considered the comparable sales in reaching the correct valuation. The qualification was that the Land Court made some allowance for a rise in the value of the land the subject of comparable sale one, in circumstances where the expert opinion of the valuer was that the market had remained steady. The Land Appeal Court found that the Land Court did not err in its consideration of other complaints about the expert valuer’s valuation, including the determination that the highest and best use of the applicants’ property was rural residential. The Land Appeal Court also found no substance in a contention that the Land Court’s decision was affected by apprehended bias. Having regard to the error that had been made, the Land Appeal Court concluded that the correct valuation required a reduction to the respondent’s valuation to $600,000.Leave to appeal The applicants require leave as the notice of appeal was filed out of time. The respondent does not oppose leave as the delay was only 10 days. In the circumstances, I would grant leave to appeal.Appeal To succeed in an appeal before this Court, the applicants must establish an error of law, or an absence, or excess of jurisdiction.[3] Where, as here, the decision involves discretionary considerations, the applicants must establish error that justifies appellate intervention.[4][3]Land Court Act 2000 (Qld), s 74(1).[4]House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504–505.Grounds 1, 3, 4 and 5 The applicants submit that the Land Appeal Court made factual and legal errors in its consideration that the highest and best use of the applicants’ land was rural residential. They submit the land was zoned rural and the statutory definition of the zoning rural residential could only apply to non-rural land. Further, they submit that the evidence showed that the property’s highest and best use was primary production and it was incorrect to assert that the applicants had conceded that its highest and best use was rural residential.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Jensen v Valuer-General [2025] QCA 102
PARTIES:	STEWART CHRISTIAN JENSEN (first applicant) MATTHEW RONALD JENSEN (second applicant) v VALUER-GENERAL (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 475 of 2025 LAC No 4 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave Land Court Act
ORIGINATING COURT:	Land Appeal Court at Cairns – [2024] QLAC 3 (Henry J, Members Isdale and McNamara)
DELIVERED ON:	13 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 May 2025
JUDGES:	Boddice and Bradley JJA and Kelly J
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is dismissed. 3. The applicants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – VALUERS-GENERAL – where the applicants are owners of rural land – where the respondent assessed the unimproved valuation of that land in 2020, at $640,000 – where the applicants lodged an objection – where the objection was not allowed by the respondent – where the applicants appealed against the objection decision to the Land Court – where the Land Court allowed the appeal and made a determination that the unimproved value was $615,000 – where the Land Court ordered that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs – where the applicants appealed both decisions of the Land Court to the Land Appeal Court – where the Land Appeal Court allowed the appeal in respect of the unimproved value, substituting an unimproved value of $600,000 – where the Land Appeal Court dismissed the appeal as to costs – where the Land Appeal Court ordered that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of each appeal – where the applicants appeal the order of the Land Appeal Court that the unimproved value of their land was $600,000 – whether the Land Appeal Court erred in its determination of what is the highest and best use of the land – whether the Land Appeal Court erred in its determination of what was the most relevant comparable sale in arriving at the unimproved valuation of $600,000 Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld), s 7, s 17, s 18 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied
COUNSEL:	The second applicant appeared on his own behalf, and on behalf of the first applicant J M Horton KC, with H Stephanos, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The second applicant appeared on his own behalf, and on behalf of the first applicant Clayton Utz for the respondent