Musumeci v Valuer-General - [2014] QLC 15

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Musumeci v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 15

PARTIES:
Alfio John and Brenda Maria Musumeci
(appellants)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:
VLA436-10, LVA401-11, LVA440-12 and LVA208-13

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDINGS: Appeals against annual valuations

DATE OF HEARING: 1 October 2013

DELIVERED ON: 30 April 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Townsville

PRESIDENT: CAC MacDonald

ORDERS:
1.    Appeal VLA436-10 is allowed.

2.    The unimproved value of Lot 551 on SP 126589 in the County of Elphinstone, Parish of Stuart is determined at One Hundred and Sixty-Two Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($162,500) as at 1 October 2009.

3.    Appeals LVA401-11, LVA440-12 and LVA208-13 are allowed.

4.    The site value of Lot 551 on SP 126589 in the County of Elphinstone, Parish of Stuart is determined at One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($160,000) as at 1 October 2010, 1 October 2011 and 1 October 2012.

CATCHWORDS:
Valuation - valuation methodology - use of sales - whether analyzed or applied value should be used in comparing subject - derivation of applied values - rationale of using applied values - relativity desirable.

Valuation - valuation methodology - use of sales - substantial difference between analyzed value and applied value - whether appropriate to apply sale - suggests sale well above market - but absence of other sales evidence.

Valuation of Land Act 1944
Land Valuation Act 2010

Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13 at 16

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources v Radlett Enterprises Pty Ltd (1997-98) 18 QLCR 397.

Fischer v The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46.
Scougall v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (1996-1997) 16 QLCR 536.

APPEARANCES: Mr AJ Musumeci, one of the appellants
Mr IR Pepper, principal lawyer, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for the respondent

Alfio John and Brenda Maria Musumeci (the appellants) have appealed against four annual valuations issued by the respondent Valuer-General under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 and the Land Valuation Act 2010. As all the appeals concern the same property, the appeals were heard together and the evidence given was, where relevant, applied to all the appeals.
Appeal VLA436-10 concerns the unimproved value of the subject property as at 1 October 2009, issued under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA). The respondent valued the subject property at $202,500. The appellants' estimate of value in the notice of appeal was $160,000.
The remaining three appeals, which were brought under the Land Valuation Act 2010 (LVA), concern the site value of the subject property. Details of the appeals are set out in the table below:

Appeal number Date of Valuation Respondent's valuation Appellants' estimate

LVA401-11 1 October 2010 $200,000 $160,000

LVA440-12 1 October 2011 $200,000 $160,000

LVA208-13 1 October 2012 $200,000 $160,000

Although, as a result of changes in the legislation, the issued valuation as at 1 October 2009 was for the unimproved value, and for the remaining three appeals the issued valuations were for the site value of the subject, the…

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 Musumeci v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Musumeci v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 15
Case: [2014] QLC 15
Decision Date: 30 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Musumeci v Valuer-General involved a dispute over the valuation of a property, specifically Lot 551 on SP 126589 in the County of Elphinstone, Parish of Stuart. The appellant, Musumeci, contested the valuation determined by the Valuer-General, who assessed the unimproved and site value of the land at various dates. The dispute was brought before the Queensland Land Court, where the court had to determine the correct valuation of the property.

The key legal issues before the court were the appropriate methodology for property valuation and the application of sales data in determining the value. The court had to consider whether the analysed or applied value of a sale should be used when comparing it to the subject property, and how applied values should be derived. The court also had to decide on the rationale for using applied values and the desirability of achieving relativity in the valuation process. The substantial difference between the analysed and applied values of a particular sale was another point of contention, as it suggested the sale was well above market value but there was a lack of other sales evidence.

In its decision, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 and the Land Valuation Act 2010. The court referenced previous cases such as Barnwell v The Valuer-General, Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources v Radlett Enterprises Pty Ltd, Fischer v The Valuer-General, and Scougall v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources to guide its reasoning. Ultimately, the court found that the Valuer-General's valuation was incorrect and determined the correct unimproved and site values of the property at specific dates.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeals and to set the unimproved value of Lot 551 at One Hundred and Sixty-Two Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($162,500) as at 1 October 2009, and the site value at One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($160,000) as at 1 October 2010, 1 October 2011, and 1 October 2012. These decisions provided clarity on the proper valuation methodology and the application of sales data in property valuation cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal VLA436-10 is allowed.

2. The unimproved value of Lot 551 on SP 126589 in the County of Elphinstone, Parish of Stuart is determined at One Hundred and Sixty-Two Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($162,500) as at 1 October 2009.

3. Appeals LVA401-11, LVA440-12 and LVA208-13 are allowed.

4. The site value of Lot 551 on SP 126589 in the County of Elphinstone, Parish of Stuart is determined at One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($160,000) as at 1 October 2010, 1 October 2011 and 1 October 2012.

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:	Musumeci v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 15
PARTIES:	Alfio John and Brenda Maria Musumeci (appellants)
v
Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO:	VLA436-10, LVA401-11, LVA440-12 and LVA208-13
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDINGS:	Appeals against annual valuations
DATE OF HEARING:	1 October 2013
DELIVERED ON:	30 April 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Townsville
PRESIDENT:	CAC MacDonald
ORDERS:	1. Appeal VLA436-10 is allowed. 2. The unimproved value of Lot 551 on SP 126589 in the County of Elphinstone, Parish of Stuart is determined at One Hundred and Sixty-Two Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($162,500) as at 1 October 2009. 3. Appeals LVA401-11, LVA440-12 and LVA208-13 are allowed. 4. The site value of Lot 551 on SP 126589 in the County of Elphinstone, Parish of Stuart is determined at One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($160,000) as at 1 October 2010, 1 October 2011 and 1 October 2012.
CATCHWORDS:	Valuation - valuation methodology - use of sales - whether analyzed or applied value should be used in comparing subject - derivation of applied values - rationale of using applied values - relativity desirable. Valuation - valuation methodology - use of sales - substantial difference between analyzed value and applied value - whether appropriate to apply sale - suggests sale well above market - but absence of other sales evidence. Valuation of Land Act 1944 Land Valuation Act 2010 Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13 at 16 Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources v Radlett Enterprises Pty Ltd (1997-98) 18 QLCR 397. Fischer v The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46. Scougall v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (1996-1997) 16 QLCR 536.
APPEARANCES:	Mr AJ Musumeci, one of the appellants Mr IR Pepper, principal lawyer, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for the respondent

Appeal number	Date of Valuation	Respondent's valuation	Appellants' estimate
LVA401-11	1 October 2010	$200,000	$160,000
LVA440-12	1 October 2011	$200,000	$160,000
LVA208-13	1 October 2012	$200,000	$160,000