McNaught v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

Donald R and Elizabeth J McNaught appealed against the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources' valuation of a parcel of land located at 7 Saywell Street, Sorrento, Gold Coast. The appeal was heard by the Land Court in Brisbane on 29 May 1998. The appellants contested the valuation of $185,000, arguing that the correct valuation should be $145,000. The court considered several factors, including changes in the valuation, disabilities of the land, and comparisons of sales.

The court first examined the changes in the valuation, noting that while the appellants argued that the valuation did not reflect the overall trend of the market for sales of improved properties in the Sorrento area, it found that the rises in valuation did not necessarily demonstrate that an error had been made in the valuation process. The court relied on previous decisions, which held that a large increase in itself was not a relevant issue if bona fide sales of comparable parcels supported the new valuation.

The court then considered the disabilities of the land, specifically the potential for future flooding and the limited quayline for boat moorings. While the court acknowledged the restrictions of the canal frontage and the mooring areas, it found that the Chief Executive had taken a reasonable approach in determining the unimproved value of the land.

Finally, the court compared the sales of comparable properties in the area, noting that the appellants had relied on sales of improved lands while the respondent had relied on sales of vacant or nearly vacant lands. The court found that the preferred method was to compare the subject with sales of vacant land, and that the respondent's estimate of the value at $185,000 was supported by the evidence.

In conclusion, the court found that the appellants had partially proved their case, and set aside the Chief Executive's valuation. The unimproved value of Lot 366 on RP 132851 was determined to be $180,000, with a reduction of $5,000 on the basis of the restriction to the canal frontage.