Lowe v Valuer-General

Case [2013] QLC 54


LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Lowe v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 54
PARTIES: Jennifer Lowe
(appellant)
v.

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA723-11
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Appeal against annual valuation
DATE OF HEARING:

14 February 2013

DELIVERED ON: 30 August 2013
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD AT: Toowoomba
PRESIDENT: CAC MacDonald
ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is dismissed.

2.   The unimproved value of Lot 5 on RP 894467 in the County of Aubigny, Parish of Ramsay, as at 1 October 2010, is affirmed at Eighty-nine Thousand Dollars ($89,000). 

CATCHWORDS:

Valuation - unimproved value - primary production use - conflict between respondent valuation and that of Australian Valuation Office (AVO) for social security - no evidence of basis for AVO valuation - respondent valuation preferred.

Land Valuation Act 2010

Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13
Fischer v The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44
Grahn v Valuer-General (1992) 14 QLCR 327

APPEARANCES: Ms J Lowe in person 
Ms T Johnson, Senior Lawyer, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
  1. This is an appeal by Jennifer Lowe (the appellant) against the assessment of the unimproved value of her land, as at 1 October 2010, by the Valuer-General (the respondent) under the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the Act).

  2. The valuation of the subject property was initially issued at $111,000.  Following Ms Lowe's objection, under the provisions of the Act, the valuation was reduced to $89,000.  Ms Lowe's estimate of the unimproved value of the land as at the relevant date was $70,000. 

  3. At the hearing of the appeal, Ms Lowe conducted her case and gave evidence in support of her grounds of appeal.  Mr BG Mahoney, a registered valuer employed by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, who is currently based at Toowoomba, gave evidence on behalf of the respondent.  

  4. The subject land is described as Lot 5 on RP 894467, in the County of Aubigny, Parish of Ramsay, and has an area of 14.1 ha.  The property is situated at Ramsay, approximately 14kms south of the Toowoomba Central Business District.  The land is zoned Rural under the planning scheme for the Toowoomba Regional Council. 

  5. Mr Mahoney said that access to the subject property is gained via Breydon Road and consists of 150m of graded gravel road off Sawpit Road which is bitumen sealed with gravel and grass table drains.  In Mr Mahoney's opinion good access is available to the subject land. 

  6. Electricity, telephone and mail delivery services are available to the property, Mr Mahoney said. 

  7. Ms Lowe said that her property is 20 kms from the town centre and 23 kms from the saleyards at Harristown.  She uses the property for farming, running Dorper sheep, and since 2002, pastured pigs.  She described the property as basalt with ironbark and eucalyptus cover.  The property was contoured in 1997 to prevent water erosion, not with the intention of cultivating the land.  There is only 1 inch of topsoil on a large part of the property.  

Statutory Provisions

  1. Section 5(1) of the Act requires…

Continue reading Lowe v Valuer-General

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lowe v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 54
Case
[2013] QLC 54
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Lowe against the Valuer-General, concerning the valuation of a parcel of land for social security purposes. The primary issue in this case was the determination of the unimproved value of a specific lot, Lot 5 on RP 894467, located in the County of Aubigny, Parish of Ramsay, as at 1 October 2010. The respondent's valuation of the land differed from the valuation provided by the Australian Valuation Office (AVO). Lowe sought to challenge the Valuer-General's decision, arguing that the AVO valuation should be accepted instead of the respondent's valuation.

The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent's valuation or the AVO's valuation should be accepted as the unimproved value of the land. The key legal issue was whether the respondent's valuation was supported by evidence, and if so, whether it should be preferred over the AVO's valuation. The court needed to consider the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010 and the relevant case law to resolve this dispute.

The court found that there was no evidence provided to support the AVO's valuation. In contrast, the respondent's valuation was based on a detailed assessment of the land's characteristics and the market conditions at the relevant time. The court held that the respondent's valuation was more reliable and should be preferred over the AVO's valuation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the unimproved value of the land was affirmed at Eighty-nine Thousand Dollars ($89,000) as determined by the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The unimproved value of Lot 5 on RP 894467 in the County of Aubigny, Parish of Ramsay, as at 1 October 2010, is affirmed at Eighty-nine Thousand Dollars ($89,000).

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.