LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Lawson v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0027 PARTIES: Alan Stuart John Lawson
(appellant)v. Valuer General
(respondent)FILE NOs: LVA307-11 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010. DELIVERED ON: 15 June 2012 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Nambour MEMBER: Mr PA Smith ORDERS: 1. The appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Practice and Procedure – onus of proof – presumption of correctness not carried over to Land Valuation Act 2010 – test is now ‘balance of probabilities’
Valuation – valuation methodology – use of relevant sales best evidence – relativity of valuations of other blocks only relevant if those valuations are shown to be correct.
Evidence – photographic evidence – use with caution –reproduced images caused features in a distance to be brought closer by way of magnification of the image.
Valuation – unimproved land – views – must have regard to attributes of the site achievable if a building is placed on site.
APPEARANCES: Mr Alan Lawson, self represented.
Mrs Thea Johnson, Counsel for the respondent
Background
This decision relates to an appeal by the appellant, Mr Lawson, against a valuation by the respondent, the Valuer-General, pursuant to the Land Valuation Act2010, (the LVA), which valued the appellants' property situated at 120 Tunba Court, Cooroy Mountain, (the subject land), in the sum of $760,000 as at 1 October 2010. The appellant contends for a valuation of $500,000.
The subject land has been valued as a rural homesite.[1] It should be noted that the land is valued as unimproved land pursuant to the provisions of the LVA, which now separates land valued as site value land and land valued as unimproved land. The land in question has a rural zoning.
[1] See Exhibit 8, page 4 of Mr Modini’s report, valuer for the respondent.
The Subject Land
The subject land is described as Lot 8 on Registered Plan 193447, parish of Tewantin. It is located in the Noosa Hinterland, approximately 15 kilometres south west of Noosa Heads and approximately 5 kilometres east of the township of Cooroy.
Access to the subject land is off Cooroy Mountain Road, which is a formed gravel rural road and via Tunba Court, which is a private formed gravel service road, servicing a number of properties along its length. Although all weather access is available along Cooroy Mountain Road, Tunba Court is low lying and subject to flooding inundation during rain events which makes that area of the access impassable.
Telephone and electricity services are available to the subject land. Good amenities are available at both Cooroy and Noosa.
The subject land has an area of 16.28 hectares. It is an irregularly shaped, four sided block. The southern boundary of the subject land abuts a dedicated, but unmade, road reserve. The northern section of the subject land adjacent to Tunba Court is gently sloping, usable land. A residence was previously located in this part of the land. As the land progresses…
Continue reading Lawson v Valuer-General
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lawson v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 27
- Case
- [2012] QLC 27
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the presumption of correctness applicable to previous valuations under the repealed Valuation of Land Act 1960 carried over to the current regime under the Land Valuation Act 2010. Furthermore, the court had to determine the appropriate test for determining the correct valuation of land and whether comparative sales of other blocks could be relied upon, and if so, under what conditions. The court also needed to assess the admissibility and reliability of photographic evidence used in the valuation process.
In delivering the judgment, the court held that the presumption of correctness did not extend to the current statutory regime, and the appropriate test to determine the correct valuation was the balance of probabilities. The court emphasised that the use of comparative sales was only permissible if the valuations of those other blocks were shown to be correct. The court further cautioned that photographic evidence should be used with care, noting that reproduced images could magnify features in the distance, thereby altering the viewer's perception. The court concluded that the respondent had correctly applied the valuation methodology and had appropriately considered the attributes of the site, including the potential for development.
The appeal was dismissed, and the original valuation of the property by the Valuer-General was upheld. The court found no error in the respondent's assessment and methodology, and the appellant's arguments did not persuade the court to alter the valuation. The judgment reinforced the importance of using reliable evidence and appropriate valuation methods in determining the value of unimproved land.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
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.