Lake Maroona Pty Ltd v Valuer-General - [2019] QLC 23

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Lake Maroona Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2019] QLC 23

PARTIES: Lake Maroona Pty Ltd
ACN 010 833 075
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NOs: LVA499-17
LVA500-17

DIVISION: General division

PROCEEDING: Appeals against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON: 29 May 2019

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 25 & 26 June 2018; 26 July 2018
Submissions closed 24 September 2018

HEARD AT: Gladstone and Brisbane

MEMBER: PA Smith

ORDERS:
As regards LVA499-17, Lot 7:

The appeal is allowed.1.

The site value of Lot 7 as at 1 October 2016 is determined in the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000). 2.

Should either party seek any order as to costs, that party must provide written notice of its intention to do so by 12 noon on Thursday, 30 May 2019, to the other party and to the Court. 3.

In the event that either or both parties seek costs, the parties are to make oral submissions as to costs at 10 am on Friday, 31 May4.        2019.

As regards LVA500-17, Lot 8:

The appeal is dismissed.1.

Should either party seek any order as to costs, that party must provide written notice of its intention to do so by 12 noon on Thursday, 30 May 2019, to the other party and to the Court.2.

In the event that either or both parties seek costs, the parties are to make oral submissions as to costs at 10 am on Friday, 31 May 2019.3.

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – where appellant objects to valuations – where site value is the basis of valuation – whether a conditional contract is a “sale” for the purposes of s 18 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 – where there are constraints on the development potential of the land – where land is zoned for limited development – where the subjects are wholly below the Q100 flood line – where access is restricted on one subject – whether the subjects can legally have a dwelling on them – where a valuer contends land should be valued at a nominal value – where appellant argues that there is no market for sale of the subjects

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – NOTICE OF APPEAL – evidence – burden of proof – whether the appellant has met the onus of proof – where appellant makes submissions on grounds not in its notice of appeal

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – OPINION EVIDENCE – LAY OPINION – where lay witness provides evidence on costings – where opinion evidence of lay witness is not accepted

Land Valuation Act 2010, s 16, s 17, s 18, s 155, s 163, s 169, s 170

Australand Industrial No.111 Pty Limited v Valuer-General [2014] NSWLEC 1255, cited
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34, cited
Brisbane City Council v Valuer-General (Qld)

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lake Maroona Pty Ltd v Valuer-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] QLC 23
Decision Date: 29 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lake Maroona Pty Ltd sought to appeal the valuations of two lots of land, Lot 7 and Lot 8, by the Valuer-General under the Land Valuation Act 2010. The land in question was situated in Queensland, and the primary concern was the valuation of the site based on its potential for development, considering various constraints. The appellant contested the valuations, arguing that the land could not support a dwelling due to zoning restrictions and flood risks. The Valuer-General had concluded that the land should be valued at a nominal amount given these constraints. The appellant further contended that there was no market for the sale of the land.

The central legal issue was whether a conditional contract could be considered a "sale" under section 18 of the Land Valuation Act 2010. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the appellant had successfully discharged the burden of proof in its appeal. The appellant's submissions included grounds not specified in its initial notice of appeal, raising questions about the admissibility and relevance of these arguments. Another point of contention was the admissibility of lay opinion evidence provided by the appellant, particularly regarding the cost implications of the land's constraints.

The court found that the conditional contract did not constitute a "sale" under the Act, thus upholding the Valuer-General's assessment. Regarding the burden of proof, the court ruled that the appellant had not met the required standard, particularly because it introduced new grounds outside its original notice of appeal. The lay opinion evidence on costings was deemed inadmissible. Consequently, the appeal for Lot 7 was allowed, with the site value set at $20,000. However, the appeal for Lot 8 was dismissed. The court outlined specific timelines and procedures for any subsequent applications for costs by either party.

Orders

Orders of the court

As regards LVA499-17, Lot 7:

The appeal is allowed.1.

The site value of Lot 7 as at 1 October 2016 is determined in the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000). 2.

Should either party seek any order as to costs, that party must provide written notice of its intention to do so by 12 noon on Thursday, 30 May 2019, to the other party and to the Court. 3.

In the event that either or both parties seek costs, the parties are to make oral submissions as to costs at 10 am on Friday, 31 May4. 2019.

As regards LVA500-17, Lot 8:

The appeal is dismissed.1.

Should either party seek any order as to costs, that party must provide written notice of its intention to do so by 12 noon on Thursday, 30 May 2019, to the other party and to the Court.2.

In the event that either or both parties seek costs, the parties are to make oral submissions as to costs at 10 am on Friday, 31 May 2019.3.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Lake Maroona Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2019] QLC 23
PARTIES:	Lake Maroona Pty Ltd ACN 010 833 075 (appellant)
v
Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NOs:	LVA499-17 LVA500-17
DIVISION:	General division
PROCEEDING:	Appeals against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:	29 May 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	25 & 26 June 2018; 26 July 2018 Submissions closed 24 September 2018
HEARD AT:	Gladstone and Brisbane
MEMBER:	PA Smith
ORDERS:	As regards LVA499-17, Lot 7: The appeal is allowed.1. The site value of Lot 7 as at 1 October 2016 is determined in the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000). 2. Should either party seek any order as to costs, that party must provide written notice of its intention to do so by 12 noon on Thursday, 30 May 2019, to the other party and to the Court. 3. In the event that either or both parties seek costs, the parties are to make oral submissions as to costs at 10 am on Friday, 31 May4. 2019. As regards LVA500-17, Lot 8: The appeal is dismissed.1. Should either party seek any order as to costs, that party must provide written notice of its intention to do so by 12 noon on Thursday, 30 May 2019, to the other party and to the Court.2. In the event that either or both parties seek costs, the parties are to make oral submissions as to costs at 10 am on Friday, 31 May 2019.3.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – where appellant objects to valuations – where site value is the basis of valuation – whether a conditional contract is a “sale” for the purposes of s 18 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 – where there are constraints on the development potential of the land – where land is zoned for limited development – where the subjects are wholly below the Q100 flood line – where access is restricted on one subject – whether the subjects can legally have a dwelling on them – where a valuer contends land should be valued at a nominal value – where appellant argues that there is no market for sale of the subjects REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – QUEENSLAND – NOTICE OF APPEAL – evidence – burden of proof – whether the appellant has met the onus of proof – where appellant makes submissions on grounds not in its notice of appeal EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – OPINION EVIDENCE – LAY OPINION – where lay witness provides evidence on costings – where opinion evidence of lay witness is not accepted Land Valuation Act 2010, s 16, s 17, s 18, s 155, s 163, s 169, s 170 Australand Industrial No.111 Pty Limited v Valuer-General [2014] NSWLEC 1255, cited Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34, cited Brisbane City Council v Valuer-General (Qld)