Ogg v Department of Natural Resources and Water

The Ogg family, comprising David E Ogg, John W Ogg and Peter G Ogg, appealed against the annual valuation of their property "McKenzie" in the Shire of Winton, Queensland, which was conducted by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water. The Ogg family contested the valuation of their property, which was set at $1,150,000 or $88/ha, as they believed it was an overestimation of the property's true unimproved value. The Land Court of Queensland, General Division, presided over the appeal, which was heard by Mr JJ Trickett.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Chief Executive had correctly applied the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 when determining the unimproved value of "McKenzie." The Ogg family argued that the valuation was inaccurate due to factors such as the relativity with other property valuations, the carrying capacity of the land, and the infestation of prickly acacia, which had negatively affected the property's value. The court had to assess the evidence presented by both parties to determine the correct valuation of the property.

The court considered the evidence provided by both the Ogg family and the Department of Natural Resources and Water. The court noted that there was little disagreement between the parties regarding the physical description of the property. However, they disagreed on the carrying capacity of the land. The court accepted the opinion of the Department's registered valuer, Mr DA Routh, who had inspected the property and was better able to make comparisons between properties. The court also accepted Mr Routh's opinion on the carrying capacity, which was 1 sheep to 1.8 ha, and his revised valuation of $1,050,000 or $80.40/ha for "McKenzie."

The court found that the valuation of "McKenzie" should be less per hectare than the valuations of the other two properties in the aggregation, "Ayrshire Downs" and "Talkara." The court determined the valuation of "Ayrshire Downs" at $84.11/ha by consent and the valuation of "Talkara" at $87.59/ha. Based on the evidence presented, the court concluded that the Chief Executive's valuation of "McKenzie" was incorrect, and the property's unimproved value should be set at $1,050,000 or $80.40/ha.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Chief Executive's valuation of "McKenzie" and determined the unimproved value of the property as at 1 October 2005 to be One Million and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,050,000). The court's decision was based on the evidence presented by both parties and the court's assessment of the property's physical description, carrying capacity, and the impact of the prickly acacia infestation on its value.