Rea v Valuer-General

[2013] QLC 18

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rea v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 18

PARTIES:

Keith Joseph Rea
(appellant)

v.

Valuer General
(respondent)

FILE NO:

LVA774-11

DIVISION:

Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON:

3 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

2 May 2012
Submissions closed 16 July 2012

HEARD AT:

Rockhampton

A/PRESIDENT:

PA Smith

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Appeal against annual valuation – no valuation or other expert evidence by appellant – valuation methodology – use of relevant sales – relativity of valuation of other blocks only relevant if those valuations are shown to be correct

Land Valuation Act 2010

APPEARANCES:

Mr KJ Rea, in person
Ms L Pham, legal officer, Advocacy team, In-house-legal, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for the respondent

Background

1. This is an appeal by Keith Joseph Rea (the appellant), against a determination by the Valuer-General (the respondent) of the unimproved value of Mr Rea’s property described as Lot 17 on Plan PM105, Lot 26 on Plan PM170 and Lot 16 on Plan PM95, Parish of Tiamby, County of Pelham (“the property”) as at 1 October 2010. Pursuant to the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (LVA), the respondent has valued the appellant’s land at $375,000[1]. The appellant contends for a valuation as at 1 October 2010 of $300,000. Pursuant to the provisions of the LVA, the property has been valued as unimproved land.

   [1]     See Exhibit 14

The Subject Land

1. The property is situated approximately 43 kms south-west of the town of Biloela. It is used by the appellant for grazing and breeding beef cattle. The property has a total area of 844.137 ha and consists of a number of lots of land which, for the purposes of the valuation, one valuation has issued.

The hearing

1. The hearing was conducted in Rockhampton on 2 May 2012 and was heard immediately after the hearing of Mr Rea’s appeal for his “Woodstock” property.[2] Although Mr Rea represented himself, he has previous experience in conducting Land Court proceedings on his own behalf regarding the valuation of his land.[3] The appellant gave evidence on his own behalf.

   [2] See [2013] QLC 17.

   [3]     See Rea v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 71 and Rea v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 72.

2. The respondent was represented by a legal officer, Ms Pham, and relied upon valuation evidence by a registered valuer, Mr Barend Haks, who is employed by the respondent.

Grounds of appeal

1. By his notice of appeal filed 8 November 2011, the appellant set out the following grounds of appeal:

   “1.  The direct comparison of the adjoining property of similar size and topography has not been addressed.

   2.Some allowance has been made for disabilities but not enough.

   3.Valuation on my property is based in part on cultivation values and this is incorrect.”

2. Unfortunately, as was the case for the appellant’s appeal with respect to his “Woodstock” property, the appellant also confused the appeal process with respect to this appeal, thinking he was appealing both against President MacDonald’s decision with respect to the 1 October 2009 valuation and making an appeal against the 1 October 2010 valuation.[4]

   [4]     See Rea v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 17 at [8].

Issues in the appeal

1. Having heard Mr Rea’s evidence and his submissions, it is clear that his main concerns boil down to two issues: that the property contains areas of former cultivation which is severely degraded and should not be valued as cultivation land; and that the property should be valued on the same basis as the neighbouring “Woodall” property. Dealing first with the issue of cultivated land, I am in little doubt that there are areas of the property that have been subject to previous cultivation and that those areas suffer from nutrient and mineral depletion as a result of that prior cultivation. However, I am also satisfied beyond any doubt on the evidence given by the respondent’s valuer, Mr Haks that he has not valued the property as a part cultivation property but has instead valued the property on the basis of its use for the grazing and breeding of beef cattle. In this regard, I note specifically that Mr Haks has taken President MacDonald’s decision with respect to the 2009 valuation into account in full in arriving at his 2010 valuation. He is certainly to be commended for that approach. He has used virtually identical carrying capacity assessments to those arrived at by President MacDonald in her decision.[5]

   [5]     See Rea v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 72 at paragraphs [17] - [20].

2. As regards the second issue raised by Mr Rea, being a proper comparison between his property and the “Woodall” property, as I pointed out to Mr Rea during the hearing, he had presented no evidence to the Court as to the valuation of the “Woodall” property as at 1 October 2010. As I further pointed out during the hearing, even if Mr Rea had provided evidence as to the valuation of “Woodall” as at 1 October 2010 he needed to go much further to show not only a proper comparison between his property and “Woodall”, but also that the valuation on his property was incorrect and that the valuation on “Woodall” was correct.

3. As I pointed out in the case of Burnett v Department of Natural Resources & Water[6]

   “This is a difficulty often faced by appellants in VLA matters who rely on relativity as one of their grounds of appeal. It is not enough for an appellant to simply demonstrate that the value of the appeal block is out of kilter with other, nearby blocks. They need to go further to demonstrate that the values of those other blocks are correct, and that the value of the appeal block is incorrect. This is because it is the primary function of the Court to determine the unimproved value of the land subject to appeal. Changing an issued valuation simply because other valuations may be wrong would only tend to exacerbate the error. Of course, this is a generalised statement, and each case must be determined on its own facts.”

   [6] [2010] QLC 0057 at [18].

4. Mr Rea did not provide evidence that went anywhere near meeting the requirements for a proper comparison to be undertaken in this regard. He provided no valuation evidence to the Court with respect to his property, let alone the “Woodall” property. He did not contest, in any meaningful way, the valuation evidence provided by Mr Haks.

Valuation evidence

1. As already indicated, valuation evidence was provided to the Court by Mr Barend Haks, a registered valuer employed by the respondent. Mr Haks is a highly experienced, senior valuer with many years of experience. Mr Haks provided a report to the Court which is Exhibit 15. Mr Haks’ report sets out the various attributes of the property and arrives at a valuation of $375,000 or $444/ha. In support of his valuation Mr Haks refers to two sales which I have summarised from his report as follows:

Sale No.	Property Name	Area	Date of Sale	Sale Price	Analysed Price	Applied Unimproved Capital Value
1	Wests Cnr	816.6 ha	21-04-2010	$1,950,000 ($2,388/ha)	$1,024,515 ($1,255/ha)	$880,000 ($1,078/ha)

Comparison

·     Similar in area to that of subject

·     Superior in country mix of forest/scrub lands compared to that of subject land

·     Superior in overall carrying capacity of the land compared to that of subject land

·     Superior in location and access to that of subject

·     Overall this Sale is considered Superior to subject land

Sale No.	Property Name	Area	Date of Sale	Sale Price	Analysed Price	Applied Unimproved Capital Value
2	Cheyene	604.2	16-09-2010	$1,575,000 ($2,607/ha)	$517,684 ($857/ha)	$510,000 ($844/ha)

Comparison

·     Similar to slightly inferior in area to that of subject

·     Superior in country mix of forest/scrub lands compared to that of subject land

·     Superior in overall carrying capacity of the land compared to that of subject land

·     Superior in location and access to that of subject

·     Overall this Sale is considered Superior to subject land

1. As indicated, Mr Haks’ valuation evidence has not been challenged in any meaningful way by the appellant. The appellant has not produced any sales in opposition to those provided by Mr Haks, nor has he attempted to show the sales evidence relied upon by Mr Haks as incorrect. It is also noteworthy that Mr Haks’ valuation has been done in a manner completely consistent with the decision of President MacDonald of this Court relating to the 2009 valuation, in which President MacDonald upheld an appeal by the appellant.

Conclusions

1. While I have no doubt that the complaints made by the appellant are genuinely held, I am also in no doubt that those same complaints were raised by the appellant in his 2009 appeal in which President MacDonald fully took those complaints into account in allowing Mr Rea’s appeal on that occasion and lowering the valuation of the property to $375,000 as at 1 October 2009, which is identical to the valuation contended for by the respondent as at 1 October 2010, the market not having shown any sign of movement in the following 12 months after 1 October 2009.

2. The property has been valued on the basis of a beef cattle property and not on the basis of cultivation. There is nothing before me that shows that the valuation is out of kilter with that of the neighbouring property of “Woodall”.

3. In short, all of the issues raised by the appellant in this appeal have already been properly and appropriately addressed by President MacDonald in her decision of 18 November 2011.[7]

   [7]     Rea v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 72.

4. I accept the valuation evidence of Mr Haks to the effect that there has been no market movement from 1 October 2009 to 1 October 2010, and the sales evidence that he has supplied in support of his opinion. In the circumstances, the only option that I have is to dismiss the appeal.

Order

The appeal is dismissed.

PA SMITH

A/PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT