McVicker v Valuer General

[2018] QLC 43

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McVicker & Anor v Valuer General [2018] QLC 43

PARTIES:

Robert McVicker and Tracy McVicker
(appellants)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:

LVA266-17

DIVISION:

General

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against objection decision under section 155 of the Land Valuation Act2010

DELIVERED ON:

14 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

29 August 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

WA Isdale

ORDERS:

1.     The appeal is allowed

2.     The site valuation of Lot 2 on Survey Plan 176476 as at 1 October 2016 is reduced to Three Hundred and Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($325,000) to correctly make the valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010.

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND –  OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS – Queensland – where site value is the basis of valuation – where the highest and best use of the land is not in dispute – direct comparison of sales is the best method of valuation – onus of proof on the appellants

Land Valuation Act 2010 s 169(3), s 170(b)

Clough v Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 20, applied
Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 11, applied
Finlayson & Anor v Valuer-General (2013) 34 QLCR 101, applied
Hans and Else Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327, applied
NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378, followed

APPEARANCES:

R McVicker, the appellant, in person

I Pepper, Legal Officer, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, for the respondent

[1]      

The appellants are the owners of land at 41-53 Challen Road, Logan Village. They are joint tenants. The land is Lot 2 on Survey Plan 176476 and has an area of

2.059 ha. There is a 935 m² access easement over it. The respondent conducted a routine valuation of the appellants’ land. The valuation is used for rating purposes by the local government. The valuation, made under the Land Valuation Act 2010 is on the basis of the land as a site, a term defined in the Act and which it is not necessary to consider as there is no dispute in relation to it. The land was valued at 1 October 2016, at $335,000.

The notice of appeal

[2]      The appellants had objected to the valuation by way of a process internal to the respondent’s administration and they have not met with success. The appellants have appealed the Valuer-General’s objection decision to the Court and their Notice of Appeal contended that the correct valuation is $234,450. The grounds of appeal are to the effect that the respondent has not used comparable sales or properly allowed for the constraints on the land.

The nature of the process

[3] The appellants have brought their dispute to this Court, which is independent of the respondent and which must decide the appeal on the evidence put before it. The appellants have provided their objection material along with their Notice of Appeal. Section 169(3) of the Act puts the burden of proof on the appellants for each of the grounds of appeal.…