Killin v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

The case of Killin v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1996] QLC 100 involved an appeal against a valuation of the appellants' land by the Chief Executive. The appellants, William R and Nester Killin, contended that the valuation of $255,000 was excessive and should be reduced to $195,000. They argued that there was no warrant for the Chief Executive to increase the valuation on the subject land from the previous valuation. The subject land was situated in Cypress Gardens, Gold Coast, and was zoned Residential “A” in the Town Planning Scheme of Gold Coast City. The land had frontage to the Nerang River and was used for single unit residential purposes.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the valuation was supported by sales of land in the area, whether the valuation was relative to the valuation of lands in the immediate area, whether the enjoyment of the land was disadvantaged by various factors which had not been considered, and whether the valuation of the land was excessive having regard to the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The court also needed to consider whether the land and improvements market value reflected the valuation of the land appealed against.

The court found that the sales referred to by the appellants in Cypress Drive and Huon Street, Broadbeach Waters were less than suitable indicators of value in contrast with the basic properties tendered by Mr. McKinnon, an experienced valuer employed by the Department of Natural Resources. Lot 169 was clearly the best basis and was supported by two other sales also enjoying an outlook over the river but no doubt being subjected to the negative aspects of such a position, such as they are. The court accepted Mr. Killin's evidence that there are certain disabilities with river frontage both in terms of the erosive effects of wave action on riverfront lands and the noise and inconvenience to neighbours created by river traffic, however such nuisances would impact as much on Lot 169 as they would on the subject and in any event, it was Mr. Killin's view that Lot 173 was superior to the subject given its more expansive river outlook.

The court decided to allow the appeal and determined the valuation of the subject land at $250,000. The court found that the application of Mr. McKinnon's basic evidence needed to be modified somewhat and that the valuation of the subject land should be reduced to $250,000.