Phillipes v Valuer-General

[2015] QLC 5

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Phillipes v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 5

PARTIES:

David Phillipes
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NOs:

LVA202-13

DIVISION:

Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON:

13 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

HEARD AT:

22 August 2014

Mackay

MEMBER:

PA Smith

ORDERS:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Practice and Procedure – onus of proof

Valuation – valuation methodology – use of relevant sales best evidence
Valuation – impact on local government rates – not an issue that the Land Court can take into consideration

Valuation – evidence of market decline post valuation date

Land Valuation Act 2010

Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 11
Donald Neil Meiers and Florence Myrtle Meiers v Valuer General [2012] QLC 0019
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0012
Tow v The Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378

APPEARANCES:

Mr D Phillipes self represented
Mr P Prasad, Lawyer, Advocacy Group, In-house Legal, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for the respondent

Background

1. This decision relates to an appeal by Mr Phillipes (the appellant) against a valuation by the respondent, the Valuer-General, pursuant to the Land Valuation Act2010, (the LVA), which valued the appellant’s property situated at 17 Banksia Avene, Andergrove, Mackay (the subject land), in the sum of $210,000 as at 1 October 2012. The appellant contends for a valuation of $180,000.

2. The subject land has received a site valuation pursuant to the provisions of the LVA, which separates land valued as site value land and land valued as unimproved land.

The Subject Land

1. The subject land is described as Lot 1 on RP 741896, Parish of Bassett. It is a residential block situated in a suburb of the city of Mackay.

2. Telephone, electricity, water, sewerage, mail and refuse collection services are available to the subject land.

3. The subject land has an area of 1,610 m². It has a long rectangular shape. There is a gentle slope up from the street then a general levelling out over the balance of the property.

4. The subject land has been cleared and developed for residential purposes.

The Hearing

1. The appellant represented himself and gave evidence at the hearing. He has no legal or valuation qualifications. The respondent was represented by Mr Prasad and relied on the evidence of a registered valuer, Mr Eisenmenger.

2. An inspection of the subject land, in the presence of both parties, was undertaken and the hearing was held at Mackay on 22 August 2014.

The Valuation Process

1. It is the responsibility of the respondent to undertake a valuation of not only the subject property, but all properties throughout Queensland. Those valuations are the basis for rating and land tax and related purposes.

2. I note with approval what his Honour Isdale said in Steers v Valuer-General:[1]

   “[8]The use of sales to provide comparisons of value is well established. In NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR…