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

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

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

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.
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

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.”
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,…

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 Rea v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Rea v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 18
Case: [2013] QLC 18
Decision Date: 3 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Rea, sought to appeal an annual valuation imposed by the Valuer-General. The dispute centred on the valuation of a parcel of land located in Victoria. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant argued that the valuation was incorrect and sought to challenge it on several grounds, including the absence of valuation or expert evidence provided by the appellant, the methodology used in the valuation, and the use of relevant sales. The Valuer-General defended the valuation, arguing that it was accurate and that the methodology used was appropriate.

The court considered whether the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to challenge the valuation and whether the methodology used was appropriate. The court also considered whether the use of relevant sales was appropriate and whether the relativity of the valuation of other blocks was relevant. The court found that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to challenge the valuation and that the methodology used was appropriate. The court also found that the use of relevant sales was appropriate and that the relativity of the valuation of other blocks was only relevant if those valuations were shown to be correct.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the valuation was accurate and that the methodology used was appropriate. The court found that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to challenge the valuation and that the use of relevant sales was appropriate. The court also found that the relativity of the valuation of other blocks was only relevant if those valuations were shown to be correct, and that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to show that the other valuations were incorrect. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the valuation imposed by the Valuer-General.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

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