Pejama Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Water

Pejama Pty Ltd sought to challenge the valuation of their property for the purposes of a compulsory acquisition under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the Department of Natural Resources and Water defending the valuation. The central issue before the court was whether the presumption of correctness afforded to statutory valuations under section 33 of the Act could be rebutted by evidence of comparable sales, and if the absence of the author of the valuation report from the witness stand affected the weight given to that report.

The court held that the presumption of correctness under section 33 of the Valuation of Land Act was not absolute and could be rebutted if the party challenging the valuation could demonstrate that the valuation was incorrect by a preponderance of evidence. However, the court found that Pejama Pty Ltd had not provided sufficient evidence of comparable sales to overcome the statutory presumption. Furthermore, the absence of the report's author did not necessarily diminish the weight of the report, as other expert evidence could corroborate or challenge its findings. The court concluded that the valuation was correct and dismissed the appeal.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal brought by Pejama Pty Ltd was dismissed, and the statutory valuation of their property remained in place. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of overcoming the statutory presumption of correctness with substantial evidence and highlighted that the absence of the report's author does not automatically undermine the valuation's credibility.