McPaul v Valuer-General - [2021] QLC 7

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: McPaul v Valuer-General [2021] QLC 7

PARTIES: Peter John McPaul
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA403-19

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Appeal against objection decision on a valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON: 5 March 2021

DELIVERED AT: Goondiwindi

HEARD ON: 24 July 2020 (Court)
and 19 November 2020 (on the papers)

HEARD AT: Gatton

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: GJ Smith

ORDERS:
1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The unimproved value of Lot 5 on SP 141765, 1751 Murphys Creek Road, Murphys Creek (PID 40616819) is confirmed in the amount of Three Hundred and Five Thousand Dollars ($305,000) as at 1 October 2018.

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTION AND APPEALS – UNIMPROVED VALUE – METHOD OF ASSESSING – VALUATION INCREASE – unimproved value assessed using bona fide sales of comparable land – increase not a relevant issue – no basis upon which Court could act

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTION AND APPEALS – where unimproved value is basis of valuation – method of assessing – where appellant undertook improvements – deduction of added value from improved value – no evidence of improved value – use of analysed unimproved value from sales preferred
REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – impact of flooding and drought – date of valuation – onus and burden of proof – sales evidence – no evidentiary basis for either ground

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – where appellant contended that respondents valuation was fabricated due to sales used – sales selection by expert valuer – best evidence – logical explanation for sales selected – application of professional judgment and accepted valuation practice – evidence of insufficient weight to discharge onus of proof

COURTS – JURISDICTION AND POWERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – whether the jurisdiction of the Land Court extends to back-dating an alteration in unimproved value – extend powers of Court under section 170 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 – powers under section 7A of the Land Court Act2000 – no jurisdiction to make Orders sought

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FURTHER EVIDENCE – hearing and submissions completed – generally inappropriate for Court to consider unless leave given – do interests of justice require further evidence to be received – would evidence affect outcome of appeals – relevance/admissibility of further evidence – whether subject matter referrable to ground of appeal

Land Valuation Act 2010

Beydoun v Valuer-General [2018] QLAC 1, applied
Caseldan Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2016] QLAC 1, applied
Clough v Valuer-General (1981/82) 8 QLCR 70, applied
Crosby v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2007] QLC 62, applied
Gympie District, Conversion (1964) 31 CLLR 246, applied
Nimmo v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 28, applied
Poole Island Holdings Pty Ltd v C/E, Department of Natural Resources [2001] QLAC 64, applied
Re Wakefield Aggregation 1926-27 11 CLLR 93, cited

Reid v…

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 McPaul v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: McPaul v Valuer-General [2021] QLC 7
Case: [2021] QLC 7
Decision Date: 5 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McPaul v Valuer-General, the appellant, Mr McPaul, sought to appeal the unimproved value of his land as assessed by the Valuer-General. The dispute centred on the methodology used by the Valuer-General to assess the unimproved value of the land, particularly the selection of comparable land sales and the impact of flooding and drought on the valuation date. The case was heard in the Queensland Land Court. The appellant argued that the assessment was flawed due to the selection of sales, the impact of environmental factors, and the lack of further evidence regarding train noise and comments from an enquirer about a nearby railway line.

The court was required to determine whether the Valuer-General's assessment method was appropriate, whether the appellant had discharged the onus of proof that the valuation was erroneous, and if the court had jurisdiction to consider further evidence. The court also needed to assess if the unimproved value, as determined by the Valuer-General, was supported by the evidence. The appellant's arguments regarding the selection of sales, the impact of flooding and drought, and the burden of proof were central to the court's consideration.

The court found that the Valuer-General had used a logical and professional method in selecting comparable land sales, applying accepted valuation practices. The court held that the appellant had not discharged the onus of proof that the unimproved value was erroneous. Furthermore, the court determined that it had no jurisdiction to consider the proposed further evidence, as it would not likely affect the outcome of the case. The court also noted that the appellant, despite being self-represented, had not provided persuasive evidence to counter the expert opinion of the Valuer-General's valuer.

The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the unimproved value of the land as assessed by the Valuer-General. The court's decision was grounded in the lack of persuasive evidence from the appellant to overturn the assessment and the absence of jurisdiction to consider additional evidence. The court's reasoning highlighted the difficulty of self-represented litigants in valuation appeals and the importance of expert evidence in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The unimproved value of Lot 5 on SP 141765, 1751 Murphys Creek Road, Murphys Creek (PID 40616819) is confirmed in the amount of Three Hundred and Five Thousand Dollars ($305,000) as at 1 October 2018.

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

It is not considered that the proposed further evidence “if accepted would most probably affect the outcome of the case”[68] and therefore it is not proposed to receive the materials concerning train noise or the comments attributed to an enquirer regarding the railway line.[68] Reid v Brett [2005] VSC 18, [41].Conclusion The duty of the Court and the onus that an appellant must discharge pursuant to s 170(b) of the LVA is addressed by the Land Appeal Court in Tennyson Reach v Valuer-General:[69]“As I understand the operation of the LVA, the Court has a duty to undertake a two-step process in considering an appeal. The first step is to determine whether or not the evidence in its totality supports the case put by an appellant that the issued valuation is in error, on the balance of probabilities, so that the onus of proof is discharged. If the onus of proof is discharged, the second phase of the evaluation to be undertaken by the Court comes into play. That is, what is the correct valuation of the subject land? The Court can only get to a consideration as to the correct valuation of the subject land and thus, s 170(b) of the LVA, in circumstances where the onus of proof has been discharged”.[70][69] [2018] QLAC 7.[70] Ibid [50]. The task faced by a self-represented litigant, unassisted by valuation evidence in LVA appeals is an onerous and difficult one. Notwithstanding this, Mr McPaul has extensively searched the internet and accumulated a plethora of sales data which has apparently been cut and pasted into exhibits 1 and 2.[71] As is often the case, even with expert valuers, Mr McPaul has encountered some difficulty confirming sales information with vendors and purchasers[72] and also found that agents were often unable to assist.[73] Despite this, Mr McPaul has improvised by confirming if the extracted data also appeared with other agents.[74] Mr McPaul was also unable to inspect most of his sales but recalled inspecting some of them when looking to purchase the subject land years before.[75] [71] T 1-10, line 16.[72] T 1-9, line 35 to 36.[73] T 1-37, line 8.[74] T 1-17, line 27.[75] T 1-9, line 24 to 30. The nature of the lay evidence in LVA appeals was considered by the Land Appeal Court in Beydoun v Valuer-General:[76] [27] The appellant is not a qualified valuer of land. The only expert evidence was that given on behalf of the respondent. The expert qualified valuer provided an opinion which was persuasive to the learned President. That opinion was not contradicted by any competing expert evidence. The appellant’s opinion was to the effect that the site value should not be more than $230,000, the site value assessed by the respondent as at 1 October 2014. The appellant did not have a valuation assessment arrived at by a method which the Courts have decided would be reliable. [28] It is unnecessary to decide whether the appellant’s opinion was admissible in proof of value because, even if it was, in view of the expert evidence of the respondent’s valuer, the appellant’s opinion however genuinely held, could not be persuasive. The Court notes the appellant’s disagreement with the valuer’s opinion, as demonstrated in his cross-examination of the valuer, who did not depart from the valuation opinion expressed in the written report that became an exhibit.[77][76] [2018] QLAC 1.[77] Ibid [27]-[28].

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	McPaul v Valuer-General [2021] QLC 7
PARTIES:	Peter John McPaul (appellant)
v
Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO:	LVA403-19
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against objection decision on a valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:	5 March 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Goondiwindi
HEARD ON:	24 July 2020 (Court) and 19 November 2020 (on the papers)
HEARD AT:	Gatton
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:	GJ Smith
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The unimproved value of Lot 5 on SP 141765, 1751 Murphys Creek Road, Murphys Creek (PID 40616819) is confirmed in the amount of Three Hundred and Five Thousand Dollars ($305,000) as at 1 October 2018.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTION AND APPEALS – UNIMPROVED VALUE – METHOD OF ASSESSING – VALUATION INCREASE – unimproved value assessed using bona fide sales of comparable land – increase not a relevant issue – no basis upon which Court could act REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTION AND APPEALS – where unimproved value is basis of valuation – method of assessing – where appellant undertook improvements – deduction of added value from improved value – no evidence of improved value – use of analysed unimproved value from sales preferred REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – impact of flooding and drought – date of valuation – onus and burden of proof – sales evidence – no evidentiary basis for either ground REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – where appellant contended that respondents valuation was fabricated due to sales used – sales selection by expert valuer – best evidence – logical explanation for sales selected – application of professional judgment and accepted valuation practice – evidence of insufficient weight to discharge onus of proof COURTS – JURISDICTION AND POWERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – whether the jurisdiction of the Land Court extends to back-dating an alteration in unimproved value – extend powers of Court under section 170 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 – powers under section 7A of the Land Court Act2000 – no jurisdiction to make Orders sought PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FURTHER EVIDENCE – hearing and submissions completed – generally inappropriate for Court to consider unless leave given – do interests of justice require further evidence to be received – would evidence affect outcome of appeals – relevance/admissibility of further evidence – whether subject matter referrable to ground of appeal Land Valuation Act 2010 Beydoun v Valuer-General [2018] QLAC 1, applied Caseldan Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2016] QLAC 1, applied Clough v Valuer-General (1981/82) 8 QLCR 70, applied Crosby v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2007] QLC 62, applied Gympie District, Conversion (1964) 31 CLLR 246, applied Nimmo v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 28, applied Poole Island Holdings Pty Ltd v C/E, Department of Natural Resources [2001] QLAC 64, applied Re Wakefield Aggregation 1926-27 11 CLLR 93, cited Reid v…