Massey v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water
[2006] QLC 47
•15 August 2006
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Massey v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water [2006] QLC 47 PARTIES: Leslie and Doris M Massey
(appellants)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water
(respondent)FILE NO: AV2005/1813 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: An appeal against an annual valuation of land under the Valuation of Land Act1944. DELIVERED ON: 15 August 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER: Mr RS Jones ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Appeal pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act 1944 against an assessment of unimproved value – s.33 of the VLA presumption of correctness of statutory valuation. – no reliable sales evidence provided by appellant. APPEARANCES: Mr N Massey in person for the appellants.
Ms C Liu for the respondent.Background
These proceedings concern an appeal against the unimproved value attributed to land located at 14 Equinox Street Taringa, more properly described as Lots 21 and 22 on Registered Plan 23620 Parish of Indooroopilly. The land lies approximately 11 kilometres southwest of the Brisbane GPO. All of the usual urban services and amenities are reasonably available however, the nearest Brisbane City bus stop is about 400 metres east of the land.
The appellants have appealed the respondent's assessment of the unimproved value of the land determined as at 1 October 2004 (affective as at 30 June 2005) assessed in the amount of $300,000. The appellants' estimate of the unimproved value of the land is $200,000 "at most".
The appellants were represented by Mr Massey in person. The respondent was legally represented by Ms Liu a senior legal officer employed by the respondent and relied on the evidence of Mr U Singh, a registered real estate valuer also employed by the respondent. I note that Mr Singh was not the valuer originally responsible for the assessment of the unimproved value attributed to the land. However, after an independent analysis and assessment of the subject land together with comparable sales evidence Mr Singh formed the professional opinion that the valuation appealed against was a reasonable one.
This appeal was heard together with the appeal by the neighbouring landowner.[1] Mr Massey was the advocate and the only witness to give evidence in both appeals. In these circumstances, it not surprising that most of the matters raised in this appeal are the same as those raised in the other.
[1] Jones v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water (2006) QLC 0046.
Issues in the Appeal
The land was zoned "Low Density Residential LR" under the Brisbane City Plan 2000. The land also lies within the "Toowong-Indooroopilly District Local Plan", as defined in the Brisbane City Plan 2000. Consistent with its land use designation the land is being used for single unit residential purposes. As such the land is to be valued in accordance with s.17(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA).
As the subject land is "improved land" for the purposes of VLA s.3(1)(b) of that Act is relevant and provides:
"For the purposes of this Act –
'unimproved value' of land means –(a) …
(b)in relation to improved land – the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements did not exist.
(2) ..."
In an appeal such as this it is also necessary to bear in mind that pursuant to s.33 of the VLA, the valuation appealed against is deemed to be correct and that therefore the appellants bear the burden of proving that it is wrong. Further, pursuant to s.45(4), the appellants are bound by the grounds of appeal as pleaded and the burden of proving every ground of appeal relied on also lies with the appellants. It is now well accepted that the presumption in favour of the correctness of the statutory valuation may be rebutted where it can be shown that the valuation was based on a wrong principle and/or involved a significant error of fact and/or was made by a fundamentally erroneous method.[2]
[2]Brisbane City Council v The Valuer General (1977-78) 140 CLR 41 at 56 – 57, per Gibbs J; see also G Cominos & Co v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (1996-97) 16 QLCR 311 at 331 – 332 (LAC).
In their Grounds of Appeal the appellants identified a number of matters which they say the respondent had failed, or failed to adequately take into account. As it appeared to me the more important matters relied on by the appellants include:
i. Equinox Street was a very narrow road causing a number of problems, particularly in respect of access, parking and traffic flow. The road carriageway and footpaths were also in a generally run down and poor condition.
ii. The remoteness of public transport access points and shops.
iii. The increase in value of the subject land was disproportionate to the values attributed to other land within the same general area, particularly where, according to the appellants some of these other properties were much better serviced by facilities including public transport and shopping.
iv. The topography of the land which included a fairly steep slope from the southwest to the northeast.
v. Pests including scrub turkeys, termites and snakes from the nearby reserve at Mt Coot-tha.
Mr Massey gave evidence on behalf of the appellants. Mr Massey has no valuation qualifications or experience but is a retired accountant. As mentioned above the respondent relied on the evidence of Mr Singh a qualified real estate valuer who, like Mr Massey, I found to be a reliable and thoughtful witness.
In my opinion, the real difficultly for the appellants was that they provided no reliable evidence of sales to support their assessment of the unimproved value contended for by them or which contradicted Mr Singh's assessment of the unimproved value of the land. On the other hand, Mr Singh relied on the sale of three lightly improved parcels of land in the general vicinity of the subject. It is well established that the best evidence for determining a basis for the assessment of unimproved value is evidence of sales of comparable vacant or lightly improved land.[3]
[3]Fischer v The Valuer General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46 (LAC); Grahn v The Valuer General (unreported decision of the LAC, 20 November 1992 – AV90/472, AV90/473).
Having regard to all of the evidence I have reached the conclusion that there was, at the end of the day, no serious challenge to the sales evidence relied on by Mr Singh. Further, I am satisfied that, in reaching his conclusions concerning the unimproved value of the land, that Mr Singh had regard to sound sales evidence which was properly analysed and applied in the valuation exercise. I am also satisfied that in reaching his final conclusions concerning the validity of the unimproved value attributed to the land that he had sufficient regard to all of the matters raised by the appellants in support of their lower assessment of value.
For the reasons canvassed above, I have reached the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove that the respondent's assessment of the unimproved value was wrong and needed to be altered. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.
Order
The appeal is dismissed.
R S JONES
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0