McPherson v Caloundra City Council - [2005] QLC 43

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: McPherson v Caloundra City Council [2005] QLC 0043

PARTIES: Graham E and Judith H McPherson
(applicants)

v.

Caloundra City Council
(respondent)

FILE NO.: A2004/0129

DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable consequent upon the resumption by the Caloundra City Council under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 for sewerage farm, disposal works and depots, recreation grounds and parks purposes of Lot 10 on SP 107372, County of Canning, Parish of Bribie containing 73.59 hectares

DELIVERED ON: 26 August 2005

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER Mrs CAC MacDonald

ORDERS:
1. The compensation payable by the respondent to the claimants is determined at $2,699,000.

2. The respondent is ordered to pay interest to the claimants at the rate of 5.5% per annum on the amount of $2,699,000 for the period commencing 12 December 2003 up to and including 5 April 2004, then on the amount of $1,849,000 for the period commencing 6 April 2004 up to and including the day immediately preceding the date that amount is paid by the respondent to the claimant.

CATCHWORDS: Valuation – method of valuation – piecemeal or overall approach – clear distinction between flooded and flood-free land – piecemeal approach adopted.
Valuation – use of sales – acceptable sales – property not advertised at time of purchase – purchased for exchange with another vendor – purchaser an experienced land developer – willing purchaser and vendor – sale adopted.
Valuation – use of sales – unacceptable sales – differences in location, topography, views, country types – adjustments necessary – no substantive evidence as to how adjustments made – sales not adopted.
Valuation – particular factors in valuation – potential for sand extraction – no separate allowance for such – potential included in overall sale price.

APPEARANCES: Mr DR Gore, QC for the applicants
Mr M Gynther for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Griffiths Parry for the applicants
Garland Waddington for the respondent

This matter has been referred to the Land Court under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (the Act) for hearing and determination of a claim for compensation in respect of the resumption of land owned jointly by Graham Eric and Judith Helen McPherson (the claimants). The land was resumed on 12 December 2003 by the Caloundra City Council (the respondent) for sewerage farm, disposal works and depots, recreation grounds and parks purposes. The land is described as Lot 10 on Survey Plan 107372 in the County of Canning, Parish of Bribie and has an area of 73.59 hectares. It is located at Sunset Drive, Meridan Plains, Caloundra.
The claimants have claimed an amount of $3,050,000 and interest as compensation for loss of the land. Although Senior Counsel for the claimants indicated that a claim for disturbance might also be pursued, no evidence as to any disturbance losses was lead.
The respondent contended that the value of the land as at the date of resumption was $2,030,000.
An advance of $850,000 was…

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 McPherson v Caloundra City Council

Details

AGLC: McPherson v Caloundra City Council [2005] QLC 43
Case: [2005] QLC 43
Decision Date: 26 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In McPherson v Caloundra City Council, the claimants sought compensation from the council for land taken for public purposes. The dispute centred on the valuation of the land in question, with particular attention to the approach taken in determining its value and the admissibility of certain sales for comparison purposes. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court. The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate method of valuation, assessing the admissibility of specific sales as comparable transactions, and addressing the impact of potential sand extraction on the land's value.

The court was required to decide whether the valuation should be conducted on a piecemeal basis, distinguishing between the flooded and flood-free portions of the land, or an overall approach without such distinction. The court found that a clear distinction could be made between the two portions and thus adopted a piecemeal approach. Regarding the use of sales, the court accepted one sale as a comparable transaction, noting the experienced developer who purchased the property and the absence of advertising at the time of sale. Conversely, other sales were deemed unacceptable due to significant differences in location, topography, and views, and the absence of evidence as to how adjustments were made to account for these differences.

The court determined the compensation payable at $2,699,000 and ordered the council to pay interest on the compensation amount. The interest rate was set at 5.5% per annum, with different periods applying based on the payment of the compensation. The court's decision clarified the approach to land valuation in the context of public works and the criteria for accepting comparable sales.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The compensation payable by the respondent to the claimants is determined at $2,699,000.

2. The respondent is ordered to pay interest to the claimants at the rate of 5.5% per annum on the amount of $2,699,000 for the period commencing 12 December 2003 up to and including 5 April 2004, then on the amount of $1,849,000 for the period commencing 6 April 2004 up to and including the day immediately preceding the date that amount is paid by the respondent to the claimant.

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.

CITATION:	McPherson v Caloundra City Council [2005] QLC 0043
PARTIES:	Graham E and Judith H McPherson (applicants)
v.
Caloundra City Council (respondent)
FILE NO.:	A2004/0129
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation payable consequent upon the resumption by the Caloundra City Council under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 for sewerage farm, disposal works and depots, recreation grounds and parks purposes of Lot 10 on SP 107372, County of Canning, Parish of Bribie containing 73.59 hectares
DELIVERED ON:	26 August 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER	Mrs CAC MacDonald
ORDERS:	1. The compensation payable by the respondent to the claimants is determined at $2,699,000. 2. The respondent is ordered to pay interest to the claimants at the rate of 5.5% per annum on the amount of $2,699,000 for the period commencing 12 December 2003 up to and including 5 April 2004, then on the amount of $1,849,000 for the period commencing 6 April 2004 up to and including the day immediately preceding the date that amount is paid by the respondent to the claimant.
CATCHWORDS:	Valuation – method of valuation – piecemeal or overall approach – clear distinction between flooded and flood-free land – piecemeal approach adopted. Valuation – use of sales – acceptable sales – property not advertised at time of purchase – purchased for exchange with another vendor – purchaser an experienced land developer – willing purchaser and vendor – sale adopted. Valuation – use of sales – unacceptable sales – differences in location, topography, views, country types – adjustments necessary – no substantive evidence as to how adjustments made – sales not adopted. Valuation – particular factors in valuation – potential for sand extraction – no separate allowance for such – potential included in overall sale price.
APPEARANCES:	Mr DR Gore, QC for the applicants Mr M Gynther for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Griffiths Parry for the applicants Garland Waddington for the respondent