Jensen v Valuer-General (No 2) - [2023] QLC 13

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Jensen & Anor v Valuer-General (No 2) [2023] QLC 13

PARTIES: Matthew Ronald Jensen and Stewart Christian Jensen as Tte
(appellants)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA198-21

DIVISION: General

PROCEEDING: Appeal against objection decision on a valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON: 29 September 2023

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 5 July 2023
Submissions closed 8 September 2023

HEARD AT: Atherton

A/PRESIDENT: PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:
The appeal is allowed.  1.

I determine that the site value is Six Hundred and Fifteen Thousand dollars ($615,000) as at date of valuation, 1 October 2020.  2.

Any submission as to costs must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.  3.

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – METHODS OF VALUATION – COMPARABLE SALES –– where subject property is alleged to have inferior access, services, outlook and vegetation overlays in relation to comparable sales – where the appellants challenge the value of the expert valuer but do not introduce their own valuation evidence – whether the expert valuer’s view should be excepted – whether the valuation should be reduced
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – ENCUMBRANCES AND RESTRICTIONS – where the subject property has a vegetation overlay preventing clearing – whether area covered by a vegetation overlay should be given a nil value

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – OPINION EVIDENCE   EXPERT OPINION – where expert witness is a valuer – where valuer is an employee of the Valuer-General – where valuer was “original valuer” for the mass appraisal valuation – where it is alleged that valuer relied on information shown to be wrong or has failed to take into account relevant and material information – whether expert valuer’s opinion may be impugned

Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld) s 17, s 45, s 46, s 170

GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General (No 2) [2018] QLC 9, cited
Hail Creek Coal Holding Pty Limited & Ors v Michelmore [2021] QLC 19, cited
Mio Art Pty Ltd & Ors v Brisbane City Council [2009] QLC 177, cited
Pratt v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 63, cited
Rodney v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 26, applied

APPEARANCES:
M Jensen and S Jensen, the appellants (self-represented)
P Prasad (Principal Lawyer), In-house Legal, Department of Resources, for the respondent

Matthew and Stewart Jensen own 16.39 ha of land fronting Lake Tinaroo directly opposite the town of Yungaburra. The Valuer-General’s 2020 valuation of the land was $640,000. The Jensens say the proper value should be $400,000. They take issue with the valuation methodology. They say the Valuer-General’s expert valuer, Robert Moroney, made errors of law and fact that affected the valuation. They take issue with Mr Moroney’s comparable sales evidence.

The Jensens did not provide any expert valuation evidence. The Valuer-General suggests that evidence of value can only be given by a qualified expert valuer and, therefore, I should accept Mr Moroney’s report in full.

The Court has…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Jensen v Valuer-General (No 2) [2023] QLC 13
Case: [2023] QLC 13
Decision Date: 29 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the valuation of a parcel of land, with the appellants challenging the valuation provided by the Valuer-General. The primary dispute centred on the methodology used by the valuer to determine the land’s value, particularly regarding the comparability of sales and the impact of various factors such as access, services, outlook, and vegetation overlays. The appellants argued that the valuer had not appropriately accounted for these differences and that the valuation should be reduced accordingly. Additionally, the appellants questioned the valuer's approach to assigning value to areas covered by vegetation overlays, which prevented clearing. The court had to determine whether the valuer's assessment was flawed due to reliance on incorrect information or failure to consider relevant factors, and whether the valuer's opinion should be excepted.

The court examined the legal principles underpinning the valuation of land, focusing on the comparability of sales and the treatment of encumbrances and restrictions. It considered whether the valuer’s methodology was appropriate and whether the appellants had provided sufficient evidence to challenge the valuation. The court also assessed the admissibility and reliability of the valuer's expert opinion, given that the valuer was an employee of the Valuer-General and the original valuer for the mass appraisal valuation. The court had to decide if the valuer's reliance on potentially incorrect information or omission of material factors warranted a departure from the valuer's opinion.

In its reasoning, the court found that the valuer's approach to valuation was generally sound, but noted some shortcomings in the consideration of specific factors such as vegetation overlays. The court acknowledged that areas under vegetation overlays should not be assigned a nil value outright, but instead should reflect the potential for future development or use. The court held that while the valuer’s opinion was not without fault, the appellants had not provided a viable alternative valuation to replace it. Consequently, the court concluded that the valuer’s opinion should not be entirely dismissed but adjusted to account for certain deficiencies. The court ultimately determined the site value at Six Hundred and Fifteen Thousand dollars ($615,000) as at the date of valuation, 1 October 2020, and allowed the appeal on this basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is allowed. 1.

I determine that the site value is Six Hundred and Fifteen Thousand dollars ($615,000) as at date of valuation, 1 October 2020. 2.

Any submission as to costs must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons. 3.

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 v Valuer-General (No 2) [2023] QLC 13
PARTIES:	Matthew Ronald Jensen and Stewart Christian Jensen as Tte (appellants)
v
Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO:	LVA198-21
DIVISION:	General
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against objection decision on a valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:	29 September 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	5 July 2023 Submissions closed 8 September 2023
HEARD AT:	Atherton
A/PRESIDENT:	PG Stilgoe OAM
ORDERS:	The appeal is allowed. 1. I determine that the site value is Six Hundred and Fifteen Thousand dollars ($615,000) as at date of valuation, 1 October 2020. 2. Any submission as to costs must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons. 3.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – METHODS OF VALUATION – COMPARABLE SALES –– where subject property is alleged to have inferior access, services, outlook and vegetation overlays in relation to comparable sales – where the appellants challenge the value of the expert valuer but do not introduce their own valuation evidence – whether the expert valuer’s view should be excepted – whether the valuation should be reduced REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – ENCUMBRANCES AND RESTRICTIONS – where the subject property has a vegetation overlay preventing clearing – whether area covered by a vegetation overlay should be given a nil value EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – OPINION EVIDENCE EXPERT OPINION – where expert witness is a valuer – where valuer is an employee of the Valuer-General – where valuer was “original valuer” for the mass appraisal valuation – where it is alleged that valuer relied on information shown to be wrong or has failed to take into account relevant and material information – whether expert valuer’s opinion may be impugned Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld) s 17, s 45, s 46, s 170 GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General (No 2) [2018] QLC 9, cited Hail Creek Coal Holding Pty Limited & Ors v Michelmore [2021] QLC 19, cited Mio Art Pty Ltd & Ors v Brisbane City Council [2009] QLC 177, cited Pratt v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 63, cited Rodney v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 26, applied
APPEARANCES:	M Jensen and S Jensen, the appellants (self-represented) P Prasad (Principal Lawyer), In-house Legal, Department of Resources, for the respondent