Mau v Valuer-General - [2016] QLC 58

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Mau & Anor v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 58

PARTIES: Jit Jew Mau
and
Lily Geok Eng Goh
(appellants)
v
Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO/s: LVA114-15

DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING: Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act2010

DELIVERED ON: 13 October 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 28 and 29 January 2016
Submissions closed 26 February 2016

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: PA Smith

ORDER/S: 1. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – onus of proof

PROPERTY – VALUATION – valuation methodology – use of relevant sales best evidence

PROPERTY – VALUATION – impact on local government rates – not an issue that the Land Court can take into consideration

PROPERTY – VALUATION – rate per m² – whether appropriate valuation methodology for residential properties

Land Valuation Act 2010

Boysen v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water [2006] QLC 55
Burnett v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2010] QLC 57
Cowen v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2009] QLC 123
Donald Neil Meiers and Florence Myrtle Meiers v Valuer General [2012] QLC 0019
Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 11
Grahn v Valuer-General [1992-1993] 14 QLCR 327
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0012
Thomson v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2007] QLC 92
Tow v The Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378

APPEARANCES: Mr Jit Jew Mau self-represented, for the appellants
Mr P Prasad, Lawyer, Advocacy Group, In-house Legal, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for the respondent

Background

This decision relates to an appeal by Jit Jew Mau and Lily Geok Eng Goh (the appellants) against a valuation by the respondent, the Valuer-General, pursuant to the Land Valuation Act2010 (“LVA”), which valued the appellants’ property situated at 10 Kolan Street, Runcorn (the subject land), in the sum of $370,000.00 as at 1 October 2014. The appellants contend for a valuation of $322,000.00.

The subject land has received a site valuation pursuant to the provisions of the LVA, which separates land valued as site value land and land valued as unimproved land.

The Subject Land

The subject land is described as Lot 85 on RP 188334, County of Stanley, Parish of Yeerongpilly. It is a residential block.

Telephone, electricity, water, sewerage, mail and refuse collection services are available to the subject land.

The subject land has an area of 555m². It has a regular shape. There is a gentle slope up from the street to the eastern boundary of the property.

The subject land has been cleared and developed for residential purposes with a single dwelling.

The Hearing

The appellant, Mr Mau, represented himself and his wife and gave evidence at the hearing. He has no legal or valuation qualifications. The respondent was represented by Mr Prasad and relied on the evidence of a registered valuer, Mr Wall.

An inspection of the subject land and various sale properties, in…

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.

Continue reading Mau v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Mau v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 58
Case: [2016] QLC 58
Decision Date: 13 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mau v Valuer-General, the applicant sought to challenge a valuation of residential property undertaken by the Valuer-General. The dispute centred around the methodology used by the Valuer-General in determining the rate per square metre for the property. The matter was heard in the Land Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Valuer-General's methodology for determining the rate per square metre was appropriate. The applicant argued that the Valuer-General had failed to use relevant sales as best evidence and had not appropriately considered the impact of the valuation on local government rates. The Valuer-General contended that the methodology was appropriate and that the impact on local government rates was not a matter the Land Court could consider.

The court found that while the use of relevant sales as best evidence was an appropriate consideration, it was not determinative of the valuation. The court held that the Valuer-General's methodology was appropriate, as it took into account a range of factors relevant to the valuation of the property. The court further found that the impact on local government rates was not a matter that the Land Court could consider when determining the appropriate valuation of the property. The court concluded that the Valuer-General's valuation was not unreasonable and dismissed the application. The court held that the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate that the valuation was incorrect, which they had failed to do.

Orders