Kagerer v Chief Executive, Department of Lands
[1996] QLC 111
•16 August 1996
|
BRISBANE
16 AUGUST 1996
Re: AV95-106 -
An appeal against an unimproved valuation
under the Valuation of Land Act 1944
Local Government: Hervey Bay City Council
M.J. Kagerer
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Lands
(Hearing at Hervey Bay)
D E C I S I O N
Mrs Kagerer has appealed against the Department of Lands (as it was then) valuation of her land situated at 35 Main Street, Pialba. The land is zoned “Business” and is used for retail purposes being developed with a single-storey brick building.
The land is described as Lot 3 on Registered Plan 65144, Parish of Urangan, containing 1,249 m². As at 1 January 1995, the Department’s valuation is in the amount of $192,500. That valuation was carried out by Mr D.R. Gaedtke, a registered valuer. In a tendered report the basis of the valuation, being comparison with the analysed values shown by four sales of “Business” zoned land was provided. Mr Gaedtke recognised that the land had topographical disabilities in its unimproved state in that part may be affected by run-off flooding and that earthworks would be required.
The grounds of appeal are that in making the valuation there was failure to give due care, consideration and inspection to various matters, broadly including comparable sales, effects of town planning limitations, topography, inconsistency and discrimination in relativity of valuations. The appellant estimated the value to be $184,000.
Mr J. Kagerer conducted the case for his wife, the appellant. The case concentrated on an analysis of relativity of values and perceived inconsistencies in application of those values. No cogent evidence of market value was introduced.
The question of the valuation of this land at earlier dates has been regularly raised before the Land Court. Then the Land Appeal Court heard an appeal against a decision of the Land Court as to the unimproved value of this land as at 31 March, 1992. Judgment was delivered on 3 March 1995 (unreported). That appeal was also conducted by Mr Kagerer and based on broadly similar grounds. The Land Appeal Court, after commenting on “the confusion which may follow when a person not versed in valuation principles attempts to rationalise any and every valuation outside reasonable bounds of comparability with the subject land without having regard to basic principles”, went on to say:
“This takes us back once more to the rather simple and uncomplicated question - is the applied value reasonable having regard to the best evidence (sales of vacant or lightly improved comparable land) at the date of valuation?”
Mr Kagerer continues to advance theories as to why valuations are inconsistent but in the end result his exercises do not simplify the process of comparison and indeed become complicated to understand through the manner in which the information is presented to the Court.
The end result is that he is unable to show that the sales evidence relied upon by Mr Gaedtke should be disregarded or that any fundamental errors have resulted from the analysis of that evidence or in its application to the valuation of the subject land.
Mr Gaedtke’s evidence, on the other hand, indicates a professional approach to the valuation task based on the adoption of accepted principles. I will not comment further on the sales evidence except to say that the information was fully explained in Mr Gaedtke’s report a copy of which was provided to Mr Kagerer.
The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0