Mychael v The Valuer-General
[1990] QLAC 28
•27 August 1990
|
BRISBANE.
Re: Appeal against Land Court's determination
of unimproved value under the Valuation of
Land Act.
AV89-178.
M.J. and M.R. Mychael
v.
The Valuer-General
J U D G M E N T
The appellants are the owners of four adjoining parcels of land having a gross area of about 73 hectares which are situated in Turtle Creek Road in the parish of Colinton. They do not reside on the property but visit the area regularly. The aggregation of land was acquired over a period between 1981 and 1988 with the intention that the appellants would retire to the area and conduct a business of primary production, namely cattle grazing. To this end they have been progressively improving and developing the property and building up a breeding herd of Murray Grey cattle. For the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1988, notice of which was given in February 1989, the Valuer-General determined the unimproved value of the property in the sum of $65,000 being the result of an application of a value of $18,000 to each of the four parcels, discounted by 10 percent for bulk holding. The appellants appealed the determination to the Land Court contending that the property should be valued at $24,342 being their estimate of the unimproved value of the block as land exclusively used for purposes of the business of primary production. The Valuer-General has expressed the opinion that if the land is valued on this basis a reasonable valuation is $17,400. The Court, after hearing Mr Mychael and Ms V.C. Newman, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands, Division of Valuations, concluded that for the purposes of the subject annual valuation the land had been correctly valued by the Valuer-General and dismissed the appeal. It is evident in the transcript that he regarded the matter as a borderline case. The appellants have appealed that decision. Mr Mychael represented himself and his wife in the matter and he expanded upon the nature of the business he conducts upon the land, more particularly on matters going to the prospects of scale and viability of the enterprise. The evidence we are about to discuss was not featured in the Court below to the extent it was pressed before us. At the outset it may be stated that the bona fides of the appellants are not in dispute nor is there any disagreement with the fact that the appellants, running up to the valuation period and beyond, have gone about the business of developing the property with continuity and diligence for the purpose envisaged. A summary of the returns from the venture over the years 1986-1988 are found at page 3 of the decision of the learned Member in the Court below. He said -
"Mr Mychael told the Court that the sale of cattle in 1986 rose to $3,299 from 8 steers, in 1987 $4,377 from 10 steers and in 1988 $5,206 from 10 steers and 2 barren cows. He has over time been buying and selling young cattle but has gradually changed his management to breeding. In 1987 he bought his first group of 10 cows, and in 1988 bought 9 cows. He now has in all 24 adult females and about 15 weaners from last year's calving. This year's calving is about 15 head. The cows are pure breed Murray Greys. He has 1 bull. He operates as a commercial herd. No stud is registered. "
The case was heard in September 1989. The argument advanced by Mr Mychael before this Court is that the returns for the above years were governed by the desire to build up a breeding herd of about 50 head. They have determined that the most profitable form of grazing activity for the block is the breeding and sale of weaners. Recently 7 weaners were sold for an average of $345 per head. The bull which was on the block when the case was heard has been sold and another purchased at a cost of $1250. In the valuation period the number of breeding cattle comprised about 24 head. Weaners and calves were also on the block. At present more calves are on the ground and more are expected in the spring. It is the appellants' submission that but for retaining young female stock for the purpose of building up the herd they would have produced returns from the property commensurate with those from a business possessing substantiality and viability although not necessarily always profitable. Whilst stock numbers have been increasing the appellants have progressively cleared lantana and sowed improved pastures. The current form of management includes the slashing of grasses and the rotation of cattle so as to keep them on green feed. In brief, their submission is that the actions in train during the valuation period both in terms of the management of stock on the property and in the development of the block were such that given favourable seasons and conditions the activity could reasonably be expected to develop into a viable venture.
We again heard from Ms Newman. It appears that her only real doubts against an application of the section for the purposes of this valuation concern the size of the herd during the valuation period and whether the property could sustain a carrying capacity of adult cattle as aimed at by the appellants. In her opinion, with the introduction of improved pasture, a reasonable estimate of carrying capacity is about 36 adult head. We have a clear impression that Mr Mychael is experienced in these matters and that his judgment should be given weight. We are also of the opinion that, with a breeding herd of 36 head and by turning off weaners and culled cows, the activity on the figures advanced by Mr Mychael could be a profitable venture although on a small scale. We are therefore of the opinion that it would not offend the intentions of Section 11(1)(vii) of the Act, as expressed in numerous judgments of this Court, to apply the section in the circumstances of the subject case.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the determination of the Land Court is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land for the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act is determined in the sum of Seventeen thousand, four hundred dollars ($17,400).
J.
Judge of the Supreme Court
Member of the Land Court
Member of the Land Court
0
0
0