LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Nucifora v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 19 PARTIES: Salvatore Nucifora & Albina Nucifora
(Appellants)
v Valuer-General
(Respondent)FILE NO: LVA312-11 DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDINGS: An Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act DELIVERED ON: 6 May 2013 DELIVERED AT: Cairns HEARD AT: Cairns MEMBER: His Honour, Mr WL Cochrane ORDERS: 1. The appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Statutory valuation –– Land Valuation Act 2010 - unimproved value – improved land – farming land - presumption of correctness – evidentiary onus.
Pajares v State of Queensland [2003] QLC 0044
Lawson v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0027APPEARANCES: Mr S Nucifora, in person for the appellants.
Mr GJ Smith, for the respondent.
Background
This is the decision in an appeal against the valuation of the Valuer-General in respect of land located at 410 Walter Lever Estate Road via Silkwood in the Cassowary Coast Regional Council area of far north Queensland.
The land is otherwise described as Lots 7 and 8 on RP 704848, Lots 2 and 3 on SP 132056 in the Parish of Japoon and Lots 1 and 2 on RP 714693 in the Parish of Mourilyan and has an area of 91.5809 hectares. The land was valued on 1 October 2010 with a date of effect from 30 June 2011.
The original valuation valued the land at $300,000 but on 9 August 2011 the Valuer-General notified the Nucifora’s that as a consequence of an objection against valuation the objection had been allowed and the valuation had been altered to $285,000 on the basis that when compared to similar properties the delegate decided a reduction in the valuation should be made.
It is against that amended valuation which Mr and Mrs Nucifora bring this appeal.
Mr and Mrs Nucifora set out the grounds of appeal in the following terms:
“Property is situated in super wet tropic between Tully and Babinda. From 1950 land was improved by substantial underground drainage to become sustainable under modern farming practices. These underground drains are beginning to fail and to continue farming cane need to be replaced at a cost of approximately (of) $100,000.
Cane production over the past 10 years has dropped substantially caused by excessive wet years and two category 5 cyclones in 5 years evidenced by production figures supplied rendering the property unsustainable for cane.
We believe weather change to be the cause of abnormally wet years accompanied by cyclonic events. Category 5 cyclones have the effect of substantially reducing production from 3 to 4 years as evidenced by production figures supplied. In 2010 production was returning to normal but 2010 being a super wet year ending in Yasi 2/2/2011 damaging further damaged crop, destroying totally all sheds and also badly damaging farm machinery. Farming without sheds comes to a standstill until rebuilt. The super wet of 2010-2011 and cyclone Yasi has reduced cane crop to less than 82000 tonnes.
Due to changing weather patterns cane farming is no longer viable on this property. We are supplying production figures substantiating…
Continue reading Nucifora v Valuer-General
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Nucifora v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 19
- Case
- [2013] QLC 19
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Valuer-General correctly applied the presumption of correctness to the statutory valuation, and what evidentiary onus rested on the appellant to rebut this presumption. The court was tasked with interpreting the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010, particularly those relating to the valuation of improved and unimproved land, and determining the appropriate standard of proof required in such cases.
In its reasoning, the court held that the presumption of correctness attached to the Valuer-General's statutory valuation, as provided for under the Act, was valid and properly applied. The court found that the appellant bore the onus of proving that the valuation was incorrect by clear and convincing evidence. The court concluded that Nucifora had not discharged this onus, as the evidence presented was insufficient to rebut the presumption. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original valuation assessment by the Valuer-General.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
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.