Rajkovic v Valuer-General - [2015] QLC 33

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Rajkovic v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 33
PARTIES:Anton & Jelena Rajkovic
(appellants)
v.
Valuer-General

(respondent)

FILE NO:LVA418-12

DIVISION:General Division
PROCEEDING:  An appeal against annual valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:                  7 August 2015
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARD ON:  6 May 2014
HEARD AT:Stanthorpe
MEMBER:WL Cochrane
ORDERS:1.    The appeal is allowed and the unimproved value of the subject property is fixed in the sum of $90,000 (Ninety Thousand Dollars) as at 1 October 2011 effective from 30 June 2012.

CATCHWORDS: Unimproved value – factors affecting valuation – method of valuation – direct comparisons with sales – relevance of evidence – evidentiary value of valuers report

Land Valuation Act 2010
Duncombe & Anor v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 4.

Nimmo v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 0028.

APPEARANCES: Mrs J Rajkovic, (in person) for the appellants
Mr I Pepper, (solicitor) for the respondent

This is an appeal by landowners against the unimproved value applied to their land located in the Local Government Area of the Southern Downs Regional Council, by the Valuer General as at 1 October 2011 effective from 30 June 2012.

Background

Mr and Mrs Rajkovic are the owners of land located at 983 Granite Belt Drive Dalveen and otherwise described as Lot 22 on Crown Plan SP131784 County of Merivale, Parish of Rosenthal which land contains an area of 4.049 ha.
As at 1 October 2011 the respondent applied an unimproved value to the land of $110,000 under the provisions of the Land Valuation Act (“the Act”).
Mr and Mrs Rajkovic objected to that valuation but were unsuccessful and subsequently appealed to the Land Court advising that their estimate of the unimproved value of the land was $55,000.
The notice of appeal was drafted by Mrs Rajkovic and identified, basically, six grounds of appeal — all of which were raised in their objection against the valuation.
In a carefully prepared notice of appeal Mrs Rajkovic set out the following grounds of appeal:[1]
“(1)   Approximately 4 acres of our land is swamp – vegetated with swamp grasses and spear grass. The soil of the swamp – appears to be white clay which cannot sustain any useful vegetation.
(2)     In addition the creek – approximately 20 metres wide on the southern boundary but crossing the whole block from north to south – is constantly being eroded due to the storm water pipeline from New England Highway. This surplus water drains onto our land on the southern boundary at three locations.
(3)     Between the house and creek, before we lived on this site, there was as orchard grown on hillocks created by the previous owner. We realise now that the hillocks were to give the fruit trees a chance to grow raised from the clay and wet. This land is not used as an orchard now but is it not viable for any land use. It is not possible to use this land for any cultivation.
(4)     In addition storm…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rajkovic v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Rajkovic v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 33
Case: [2015] QLC 33
Decision Date: 7 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rajkovic v Valuer-General, the appellants, Anton and Jelena Rajkovic, appealed against the valuation of their land by the Valuer-General under the Land Valuation Act 2010. The land in question was located in the Local Government Area of the Southern Downs Regional Council and was valued at $110,000 as at 1 October 2011. The appellants contested the valuation, submitting that the unimproved value of the land should be $55,000. They cited various factors affecting the value of the land, including its swampy nature, drainage issues, proximity to a high-voltage power line, and noise pollution from nearby roads and a railway line. The legal issues involved determining the appropriate method of valuation, the relevance of evidence presented by the appellants, and the evidentiary value of the valuer's report.

The court found that while the valuer's evidence should be accorded considerable weight, it was not immune from challenge if it lacked rational explanation or failed to take into account relevant facts. The court accepted the appellants' evidence regarding the impact of water on the land and its drainage characteristics. The court found that the valuer had failed to give sufficient weight to these factors and had overstated the value of the land. Considering all the detriments attributable to the land, the court determined that the unimproved value of the subject property should be fixed at $90,000 as at 1 October 2011, effective from 30 June 2012. The appeal was allowed, and the unimproved value was fixed accordingly.

Orders