Kelly and Kojrowicz v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2008] QLC 154
•16 June 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:Kelly and Kojrowicz v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0154
PARTIES:Robyn E Kelly (appellant)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
Debra J Kojrowicz (appellant)
v
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)
FILE NOS: AV2006/0190 and RV2006/0191; AV2006/0188 and RV2006/0189
DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: Appeals against annual and rental valuations DELIVERED ON: 16 June 2008
DELIVERED AT: Winton
HEARD AT: Winton
MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett, President
ORDER: 1. In appeal AV2006/0190, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Moreena” for rating purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($1,260,000).
2. In appeal RV2006/0191, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Moreena” for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at
One Million, Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($1,260,000).
3. In appeal AV2006/0188, the appeal is allowed and the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Ingle Downs” for rating purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Nine Hundred and Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($935,000).
4. In appeal RV2006/0189, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Ingle Downs” for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Nine Hundred and Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($935,000).
CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – grazing properties in Aramac and Longreach Shires – relativity with valuations of other properties – direct comparison with determinations of selected cases – sales relied upon in the determination of selected cases – Valuation of Land Act 1944
APPEARANCES: Mr A Boyd, agent, for the appellants
Mr W Isdale, Executive Legal Consultant, Crown Law, for the respondent
These are appeals by landowners in the Shires of Aramac and Longreach against the unimproved values applied to their lands by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (the Department) as at 1 October 2005 under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act).
Background
Ms RE Kelly is the owner of a property known as “Moreena”, containing an area of 14,249.791 ha,situated about 95 km north-west of Winton via approximately 50 km of the bitumen sealed Winton-Cloncurry Road and 45 km of formed earth road. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $1,350,000, or
$94.74/ha, to that property for both rating and rental purposes. Ms Kelly appealed against those valuations, stating that her estimate of the unimproved value for both purposes was $455,000.
Ms DJ Kojrowicz is the owner of a grazing property known as “Ingle Downs”, containing an area of 10,758.973 ha. It almost adjoins “Moreena”, being separated only by the Wockingham Stock Route and has similar access. As at 1 October 2005, the Department applied an unimproved value of $1,000,000, or $92.95/ha, to that
property for both rating and rental purposes. Ms Kojrowicz appealed against that valuation, stating that her estimate of the unimproved value is $400,000.
Both “Moreena” and “Ingle Downs” are part of the Mitchell family’s aggregation in the Winton District. The appeals were lodged on the owners’ behalf by their agent, Mr A Boyd. The grounds of both appeals are wide ranging but of a general nature, essentially contending that the unimproved values are excessive because of the failure by the Department to take into account and make proper allowance for various matters, or to apply the correct principles of valuation.
These appeals are among a number of cases tried by fast-track hearing, following the determinations of selected cases in the Shire of Winton.1 The parties agreed that the remaining appeals be determined by confining the evidence to comparisons with the decisions in those cases and to the sales relied upon in arriving at those determinations. However, evidence of the differences between individual properties was also heard.
The evidence for the appellants
Evidence for the appellants in each case was given by Mr RD Fawckner, the owner of “Bonnie Downs”, one of the selected cases. Mr Fawckner emphasised the open almost treeless nature of most of the country on both properties. However “Moreena” has more channels, which affords some shade. According to Mr Fawckner, both properties contain a large proportion of ashy country, growing little Mitchell grass, only Flinders grass and herbage. However, he was prepared to accept the Department’s carrying capacity of 1 sheep to 1.8 ha.
The evidence for the Department
Evidence for the Department was given by registered valuer, Mr DA Routh. Mr Routh described “Moreena” as comprising open to lightly shaded downs predominantly loose, with approximately 25% of firmer pebbly downs. Approximately 6.5% of the area comprises Wockingham Creek channels which run along the south-eastern boundary. He assessed the carrying capacity of “Moreena” at 1 sheep to 1.8 ha, or 7,917 sheep.
Mr Routh described “Ingle Downs” as comprising approximately ⅓rd open undulating brown soil Mitchell grass downs through the centre of the property, ⅓rd
Fawckner v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0036 and Elliot v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2008] QLC 0040.
firm pebbly open downs on the western side, grassed with Bull Mitchell and ⅓rd open loose ashy downs. He assessed the carrying capacity of “Ingle Downs” also at 1 sheep to 1.8 ha, or 5,977 sheep.
In Mr Routh’s opinion, “Moreena” is a marginally better property than “Ingle Downs”, due to the channels, which, although they can cause problems, they are more than offset by benefits of shade and seasonal water. He observed that “Ingle Downs” also has a greater amount of Bull Mitchell grass.
The issues
[10]There was essentially no dispute about the description of country or the carrying capacity of these properties. They appear to be very similar, although they are situated on opposite sides of Wockingham Creek. Both Mr Fawckner and Mr Routh seem to agree that “Moreena” is slightly better than “Ingle Downs” because of the shade on the channels. However, it seems there is not much between them.
[11] Originally the Department had issued rating and rental valuations for “Moreena” at
$94.74/ha and for “Ingle Downs” slightly lower at $92.95/ha. Subsequent to the hearings of the “Bonnie Downs” and “Belmont” cases, Mr Routh reinspected both “Moreena” and “Ingle Downs” and adjusted the valuations in line with those Court determinations. He led evidence to a valuation of “Moreena” at $88.42/ha and of “Ingle Downs” at $86.90/ha.
[12]Mr Fawckner’s contended for valuations of $87.15/ha for “Moreena” and $85.50 for “Ingle Downs”, which are very little different to those of Mr Routh. Mr Fawckner is a grazier of long experience and knows the subject properties well. He contends that they comprise lighter country than the properties to the east of Caulfield which were the subject of the earlier determinations by the Court. That is reflected in his contended valuations.
Conclusion
[13]Mr Routh has full inspected both properties. As a registered professional valuer, I must give more weight to his evidence than that of a landowner, no matter how much I respect his opinion of country. Therefore, I accept the values contended for by Mr Routh.
Orders
1.In appeal AV2006/0190, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Moreena” for rating
purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($1,260,000).
2. In appeal RV2006/0191, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Moreena” for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at One Million, Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($1,260,000).
3. In appeal AV2006/0188, the appeal is allowed and the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Ingle Downs” for rating purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Nine Hundred and Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($935,000).
4. In appeal RV2006/0189, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Chief Executive is set aside and the unimproved value of “Ingle Downs” for rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 is determined at Nine Hundred and Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($935,000).
JJ TRICKETT PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0