Kelly and Kojrowicz v Department of Natural Resources and Water

The Land Court of Queensland recently heard appeals by Robyn E Kelly and Debra J Kojrowicz against the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources and Water regarding the unimproved values applied to their respective properties, "Moreena" and "Ingle Downs", for rating and rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The Department had previously assessed the unimproved values of these properties, but the appellants argued that these valuations were excessive and did not take into account various factors or apply correct valuation principles. The appeals were heard following the determinations of selected cases in the Shire of Winton.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Chief Executive's valuation of the properties was accurate and in line with the relevant legislation. The court needed to determine if the valuations were excessive and if they should be adjusted based on the evidence presented by both the appellants and the respondent. The court also had to consider the relativity of the valuations with other properties in the area, as well as the sales relied upon in the determination of selected cases.

The court found that the Chief Executive's valuations were indeed excessive and did not properly account for various factors or apply correct valuation principles. The court relied on the evidence of Mr RD Fawckner, the owner of "Bonnie Downs", one of the selected cases, and registered valuer, Mr DA Routh. The court accepted Mr Routh's evidence as he was a registered professional valuer and had inspected both properties. The court concluded that the unimproved values of "Moreena" and "Ingle Downs" for rating and rental purposes as at 1 October 2005 should be adjusted to $1,260,000 and $935,000, respectively.

The court allowed the appeals, set aside the Chief Executive's valuations, and determined the unimproved values of "Moreena" and "Ingle Downs" for rating and rental purposes as at 1 October 2005. The court found that the Chief Executive's valuations were excessive and did not take into account various factors or apply correct valuation principles. The court relied on the evidence presented by both the appellants and the respondent and made its decision based on the relativity of the valuations with other properties in the area and the sales relied upon in the determination of selected cases.