Leowenich v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

In the case of Anneliese and Bernd D J Loewenich v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, the Land Court in Brisbane was tasked with determining the unimproved value of a parcel of land located at 91 to 99 Springacre Road, Thornlands. The appellants, Anneliese and Bernd Loewenich, sought to challenge the Chief Executive's valuation of the land at $385,000, arguing that the unimproved value should be $280,000. The key issues before the court were the nature of the land, its potential uses, and the comparison of sales in the area. The court had to decide whether the appellants had successfully demonstrated that the value of the land was lower than the valuation provided by the Chief Executive.

The court first considered the nature of the land, particularly the impact of smells from surrounding chicken sheds on adjoining properties. Although the appellants argued that the smells emanating from the sheds significantly reduced the value of their land, the court found that the presence of similar smells was likely to be experienced on other comparable properties in the area. Furthermore, the panoramic views from the subject land were highlighted as a valuable feature that would attract buyers, which could offset any negative impacts from the surrounding chicken sheds.

Next, the court examined the potential uses of the land. While the appellants had made significant improvements to the land, including sheds and machinery sheds, the court noted that the land had been primarily used as a rural residential home site at the time of valuation. The court acknowledged that the appellants might seek a concessional valuation for farming purposes in the future, but this was not relevant to the current dispute.

Finally, the court compared the sales of other vacant lands in the area. The appellants provided sales evidence to support their valuation, but the court found that the Chief Executive's assessment of the unimproved value was well-supported. The court noted that the sales provided by the appellants were either inferior to the subject land or had other factors that needed to be taken into account.

In conclusion, the court found that the appellants had not discharged their onus of proving that the unimproved value of the land was $280,000. The appeal was dismissed, and the Chief Executive's valuation of $385,000 was affirmed.