Keough and Wirth v Department of Natural Resources and Water
[2007] QLC 87
•30 October 2007
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Keough and Wirth v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2007] QLC 0087 PARTIES: Henry William Keough and Hazel Grace Wirth
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2005/0460 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland – General Division PROCEEDING: An appeal against an interim valuation under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. DELIVERED ON: 30 October 2007 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Longreach MEMBER: Mr JJ Trickett, President ORDER: The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value determined by the Chief Executive as at 1 October 2001 of Five Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($540,000) is affirmed. CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – appeal against interim valuation – previous decision reducing valuations – amalgamated valuation including properties acquired since previous valuation – proportional reduction sought - Valuation of Land Act 1944. APPEARANCES: Miss H Pedley for the appellants.
Mr W Isdale of counsel, Crown Law, for the respondentBackground
Henry William Keough and Hazel Grace Wirth (the appellants) are the owners of a property with a total area of about 47,347 ha, comprising 10 separate parcels of leasehold land, situated to the west of Longreach. For rating purposes, the respondent had issued a single valuation for those 10 parcels as at 1 October 2001, at $540,000, against which the owners have appealed.
However, as at 1 October 2001, for rental purposes the respondent had valued seven of those leasehold properties by applying separate valuations to each, in accordance with s.34(3) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The appellants appealed against those valuations and were successful in having them all reduced. The reasons for the reductions are contained in the decision of the Land Court in Keough & Wirth v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2004] QLC 0101, delivered on 18 November 2004. The reductions were as follows:
Lease Reference Land Court Reference Valuation Appealed Valuation Determined GHPL29/11338 RV2002/0818 $147,000 $143,000 Lot 4952 on PH 203 RV2002/0819 $250,000 $207,500 GHPL29/10966 RV2002/0820 $28,700 $25,000 GHPL29/10977 RV2002/0821 $30,000 $25,000 GHPL29/10976 RV2002/0822 $30,000 $25,000 GHPL29/11235 RV2002/0823 $30,000 $25,000 GHPL29/10965 RV2002/0824 $30,000 $25,000
The total of the seven valuations appealed was $545,700. The total of the seven valuations determined was $475,500.
The appellants also own three other small GHPLs which they acquired (according to the respondent's written submissions) about 18 December 2002, i.e. after the issue of the respondent's 2001 valuations. It seems that the previous owner of those parcels did not object or appeal against the respondent's valuations of those three parcels as at 1 October 2001, which were as follows:
Lease Reference Valuation GHPL29/10983 $28,500 GHPL29/11278 $27,500 GHPL29/11279 $24,500
The total of those three valuations is $80,500.
For the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act, all 10 of those leasehold properties must be valued separately for rental value purposes, but also as a single valuation for rating purposes. However, it seems that subsequent to the determination of the seven rental valuations by the Land Court on 18 November 2004, the respondent decided to also adjust the rating valuation of $570,000 for all 10 parcels to $540,000. That altered valuation included the seven leasehold parcels, the rental valuations of which had been determined by the Land Court and the three other leasehold parcels. That amalgamated valuation issued as an interim valuation by the respondent and is the subject of the present appeal.
The appellants argue that prior to the Land Court's determination of the rental valuations of the seven parcels, the total of the separate rental valuations for the 10 parcels was $626,200 ($545,700 plus $80,500). After the determinations by the Land Court, the total of the rental valuations for the 10 parcels was $556,000 ($475,500 plus $80,500). Therefore, the reduction in the total of the rental valuations was $70,200, or 11.2%.
However, the appellants submit that the respondent's amalgamated rating valuation for the 10 parcels had issued at $540,000, which is only 5.263% less than the previous rating valuation for the 10 parcels of $570,000.
The appellants argue that there should be the same relativity between the pre and post Land Court determinations for the separate rental valuations and the pre and post Land Court determinations for the rating valuation. Therefore, they submit that the previous amalgamated rating valuation of $570,000 should have been reduced by 11.2%, to $506,103, not by only 5.263% to $540,000.
On the other hand, the respondent argues that the total of the 10 rental valuations of $556,000 equates to $11.74 per hectare for the 47,346.748 hectares of the aggregation. When adjusting the amalgamated rating valuation, the respondent had applied $11.50 per hectare which, when rounded, equals $540,000.
In its decision of 18 November 2004, at paragraph [69] the Land Court had said:
"It would appear that the Department's valuations of this and the other small leasehold blocks forming part of the 'Weeumbah West' aggregation have had some premium included due to their small size. They are valued separately in this instance, because each is separately leased. Whatever was the purpose of their original survey and there was some conjecture about that, it is difficult to accept that a market would now exist for blocks of this size in this locality which would attract any identifiable premium above the grazing value as part of a larger amalgamation."
The respondent points out that the Land Court altered the relativity of values applied to the various leases. Prior to the Court determination, each of those values of the five smaller parcels had included a premium for its small size. The Court found that such premiums should be excluded. Therefore, the respondent submits, it is not valid to make such a comparison.
I accept the submissions of the respondent. The total of the values of the individual leases amounts to $556,000. The value applied to the 47,346.748 hectares of the amalgamated valuation is $540,000. Given that the Land Court rejected the premium for size that the Chief Executive had applied to the individual valuations of those lands, it seems to me that the appellants are not disadvantaged in having a valuation of $540,000 applied for the amalgamated rating valuation.
At paragraph [73] of its decision, although recognising that there were differences in the classifications and carrying capacity of the five smaller parcels of leasehold land, the Court applied $25,000 to each parcel, after adjusting for the water disability, as "a practical market approach". If that same average valuation of $25,000 was applied to each of the three leasehold parcels since acquired by the appellants, the total would be $75,000. If that was added to the $475,500 as determined by the Land Court as the sum of the individual leasehold values, the result would be $550,000. That is greater than the value applied to the amalgamated parcel of $540,000.
Therefore, the appellants have not persuaded me that the valuation of $540,000 determined by the respondent should be disturbed.
Order
The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value determined by the Chief Executive as at 1 October 2001 of Five Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($540,000) is affirmed.
JJ TRICKETT
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0