Moon v Department of Natural Resources and Mines - [2005] QLC 35

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Moon v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 0035

PARTIES: Bruce Moon
(applicant)

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
(respondent)

FILE NO.: AV2003/0349

DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING: Appeal against annual valuation under Valuation of Land Act 1944

DELIVERED ON: 29 June 2005

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Coolangatta

MEMBER Dr NG Divett

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of One Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS: Evidence – expert evidence – nature of evidence – role of a valuer explained [68] and [71]
Valuation – sales evidence – comparable sales – Valuation of Land Act 1944 [67]
Valuation – factors in valuation – restrictions on use – vegetation management – planning implications – duty of care of Council [52].

APPEARANCES: Dr B Moon appeared on his own behalf
Mr A Cradick, Principal Legal Officer appeared for the respondent

Background:

This matter relates to land at 18 Carlisle Drive, Currumbin, and described as Lot 110 on RP 90577, Parish of Tallebudgera. The subject land has an area of 559 square metres, and is located on Currumbin Hill, to the west of the Pacific Highway, and about 1 km. by road to the nearest surfing beach at Tugun. Carlisle Drive is a two-lane bitumen sealed carriageway with concrete kerbing and channelling. All normal urban utility services are available. The subject land is designated as Detached Dwelling under the Gold Coast City New Town Plan of 6 June 2003, effective at the relevant date of 1 October 2002. The key issues are the nature of the land, disabilities of the land, planning implications, method of valuation and comparison of sales.
On 24 February 2003 the Chief Executive issued a valuation of the subject land at $126,000. Following an objection the Chief Executive confirmed that figure on 10 June 2003. The appellant has now appealed claiming that the unimproved value should more properly be $111, 000. At the hearing on 2 February 2005 the valuer for the respondent provided evidence for a higher unimproved value of $130,000.
Dr Bruce Moon, a professional land use planner, appeared and gave evidence on his own behalf. Mr A Cradick, Principal Legal Officer appeared for the respondent, calling evidence from Helena Wilson, the departmental registered valuer now accepting responsibility for the valuation, which was previously undertaken by another valuer no longer available to defend the valuation.

History of the valuation -

Dr Moon explains that the subject land had been previously valued by the respondent at 1 October 2001 at $74,000. He argues that when he first objected against the new valuation of $126,000 for 1 October 2002, he then had confidential without prejudice discussions with the previous valuer (Mr Crowley), who indicated certain sales evidence that had then been used to determine the unimproved value at $126,000. Subsequent to those discussions Dr Moon now finds that Miss Wilson has used…

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 Moon v Department of Natural Resources and Mines

Details

AGLC: Moon v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 35
Case: [2005] QLC 35
Decision Date: 29 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Moon v Department of Natural Resources and Mines, the dispute arose when the respondent sought to acquire a parcel of land under the Land Acquisition Act 1963. The appellant contested the valuation of the land, arguing it was too low. The case was heard in the Queensland Land Court, which was required to determine the appropriate unimproved value of the land.

The primary legal issues involved the appropriate method for valuing the land, the relevance and weight of various forms of evidence, and the factors that should be considered in the valuation process. The court had to interpret the Valuation of Land Act 1944 and decide how to balance sales evidence with other relevant factors such as restrictions on use and planning implications.

The court affirmed that the unimproved value was correctly determined by the Chief Executive, holding that the evidence provided was sufficient to support the valuation. The court found that the sales evidence was relevant, but it also considered the restrictions on use and planning implications. The court concluded that the Chief Executive had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had not erred in determining the value of the land. The appeal was dismissed, and the unimproved value as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of One Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of One Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) is affirmed.

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:	Moon v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 0035
PARTIES:	Bruce Moon (applicant)
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (respondent)
FILE NO.:	AV2003/0349
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against annual valuation under Valuation of Land Act 1944
DELIVERED ON:	29 June 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Coolangatta
MEMBER	Dr NG Divett
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value as determined by the Chief Executive in the sum of One Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) is affirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	Evidence – expert evidence – nature of evidence – role of a valuer explained [68] and [71] Valuation – sales evidence – comparable sales – Valuation of Land Act 1944 [67] Valuation – factors in valuation – restrictions on use – vegetation management – planning implications – duty of care of Council [52].
APPEARANCES:	Dr B Moon appeared on his own behalf Mr A Cradick, Principal Legal Officer appeared for the respondent