LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: O’Connor v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 44 PARTIES: Daniel James O'Connor & Despina Maria O'Connor
(appellants)v Valuer-General
(respondent)FILE NO: LVA031-16 DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: An appeal against annual valuation. DELIVERED ON: 3 August 2016 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: 5 & 6 May 2016 HEARD AT: Brisbane A/PRESIDENT: WL Cochrane ORDERS: 1. The appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Land Valuation Act 2010
Statutory Valuations - Land Valuation Act 2010 – sales and other basic evidence – best evidence of value.
Statutory Valuations – relativity – vacant or lightly improved sales preferred.
Practice and Procedure – onus of proof – presumption of correctness not carried over to Land Valuation Act 2010 – the test is now “balance of probabilities” – onus on appellant.
R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13
Body Corporate for Wendall Court & Anor v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 16
BWP Management Limited v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 3
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources v Radlett Enterprises Pty Ltd (1997-98) 18 QLCR 397
Farr v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 64
Hans and Else Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327
Ladewig v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water [2007] QLC 47
Lawson v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 27
Musumeci v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 15
APPEARANCES: Mr DJ O'Connor self-represented for the appellants.
Ms R Harding of Counsel for the respondent.
Background
This decision relates to an appeal by the appellants Daniel James & Despina Maria O'Connor against a valuation by the respondent, the Valuer-General, pursuant to the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the LVA), which valued the appellants’ property situated at 24 Rowallan Close at Westlake, a western suburb of Brisbane with many river and lakeside properties.
The subject land is a wedge-shaped block of low-density residential land with an area of 860m2.
The subject lot has a 10.7m frontage, the rear southern (boundary) measures 29.59m and shares a side (eastern) boundary of 29.6m which adjoins a public path.[1]
[1] Exhibit 1, p 3 para 24.
The land is generally level at approximately 18m AHD at the front of the site and at the rear. It is located about 170m from the Brisbane River and did not flood in the 2011 flood event being 2 to 4m above the flood-water height.[2]
[2] Exhibit 1, p 3, para 25.
Rowallan Close is a short bitumen-sealed no-through-road with concrete kerb and channelling. It is accessed via Wendouree Crescent, a local through road.
On the subject land is a large two-storey brick and tile house which was apparently built in the late 1990s. All the adjoining and nearby houses in the whole of Rowallan Close are of a similar standard and are very well-maintained.
The land is not far from the Pullen Reach of the Brisbane River but itself did not flood during the 2011 flooding event which devastated much of this area.
All of the standard suburban services…
Continue reading O'Connor v Valuer-General
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- O'Connor v Valuer-General [2016] QLC 44
- Case
- [2016] QLC 44
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court addressed whether the Valuer-General had correctly applied the principles of relativity and the best evidence of value as outlined in the Act. It was established that the Act does not carry over the presumption of correctness, and instead, the onus of proof lies with the appellant to show that the Valuer-General's valuation was incorrect. The court emphasised that the test for correctness is now based on the balance of probabilities, shifting the burden to the appellant. The reasoning focused on the statutory framework and the Valuer-General's adherence to legislative mandates.
After examining the evidence and the statutory provisions, the court concluded that the Valuer-General had appropriately applied the relevant principles and the evidence used for the valuation was the best available. The court found that O'Connor had not met the required standard of proof to overturn the Valuer-General's valuation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original valuation was upheld.
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.