Multiplex 240 Queen Street Landowner Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water

Multiplex 240 Queen Street Landowner Pty Ltd brought an appeal against the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water concerning the valuation of unimproved land under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The crux of the dispute was the interpretation of section 35A of the Act, which addresses the inclusion of the value of intangible improvements in the valuation of land. Specifically, the issue was whether the value of such improvements should be taken into account when determining the unimproved value of the land, even if no application had been made under section 35A. Additionally, the case raised questions about the admissibility of valuations made under section 3(2) of the Act, and whether the Chief Executive was required to make valuations under both section 3(1)(b) and section 3(2), and then apply the higher valuation. The court was tasked with resolving these points of law and ensuring that the principles of relativity in land valuation were properly applied.

The court addressed the interpretation of section 35A, clarifying that the valuation of intangible improvements should indeed be considered in the valuation of the subject lands. However, these improvements must be excluded from the unimproved values. The court found that the evidence of valuations made under section 3(2) was not admissible as it did not align with the statutory requirements for such valuations. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Chief Executive was not obligated to make valuations under both sections 3(1)(b) and 3(2), but rather the valuation process must adhere to the specific statutory provisions outlined in the Act. The court's interpretation emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory mandates and the correct application of relativity principles in land valuation.

In summary, the court determined that intangible improvements should be valued and excluded from unimproved land values, and that valuations made under section 3(2) were not admissible. The court's reasoning was grounded in statutory interpretation and the need for compliance with the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The final orders reflected these determinations, providing clear guidance on the valuation process for unimproved land.