Rea v Valuer-General - [2013] QLC 17

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Rea v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 17

PARTIES:
Keith Joseph Rea
(appellant)

v.

Valuer General
(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA775-11

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:

30 April, 1, 2 May 2012
Submissions closed 16 July 2012

HEARD AT: Rockhampton

A/PRESIDENT: PA Smith

ORDERS:
1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The unimproved value of the aggregation property known as “Woodstock” is fixed in the sum of Six Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($660,000) as at 1 October 2010.

CATCHWORDS:
Practice and Procedure – onus of proof – “presumption of correctness” replaced in Land Valuation Act 2010 by “balance of probabilities”

Appeal against annual valuation – evidence as to comparison of various properties – lack of sales evidence

Land Valuation Act 2010
Valuation of Land Act 1944

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 known as “Woodstock” 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 $700,000. The appellant contends for a valuation as at 1 October 2010 of $80,000. Pursuant to the provisions of the LVA applicable to “Woodstock”, “Woodstock” has been valued as unimproved land.

The Subject Land

“Woodstock” is situated on the Marlborough-Sarina Road about 11 kms south-west of Marlborough which is approximately 100 kms north-west of Rockhampton. “Woodstock” is severed into two parts by the Marlborough-Sarina Road. It is used by the appellant for grazing and breeding beef cattle. “Woodstock” has a total area of 6,937.6765 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 over a three day period, with the first day used for the purposes of an inspection of “Woodstock” and various sale properties. Although Mr Rea represented himself, he has previous experience in conducting Land Court proceedings on his own behalf regarding the valuation of his land.[1] The appellant called evidence from an expert in Applied Genetics, Mr Alfred Collins, and also gave evidence on his own behalf. The appellant also relied upon a statutory declaration of David Atkinson.[2]
[1] See Rea v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 71 and Rea v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 72.
[2] See Exhibit 7.
The respondent was represented by a legal officer, Ms Pham, and relied upon valuation evidence by a registered valuer, Mr David W Drew, who is employed by the respondent.

Preliminary issue - grounds of appeal

In the early stages of the hearing, the appellant sought to give evidence as to access to “Woodstock”. Ms Pham objected to the receipt of this evidence on the…

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 17
Case: [2013] QLC 17
Decision Date: 3 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rea v Valuer-General involved an appeal against an annual valuation of property. The appellant, Rea, challenged the valuation of an aggregation property known as "Woodstock," which was assessed by the Valuer-General. The dispute was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the Valuer-General correctly applied the legislative provisions in determining the property's valuation, particularly focusing on the shift from a presumption of correctness to a balance of probabilities standard in the Land Valuation Act 2010.

The court had to consider the appropriate legal standard to be applied in the context of property valuation and whether the Valuer-General's decision-making process was in accordance with the legislative requirements. The appellant argued that the Valuer-General did not adequately consider the comparative evidence of other properties when determining the valuation of Woodstock, thereby misapplying the legislative provisions. The court examined the evidence presented, including the lack of recent sales data for similar properties, and assessed whether this impacted the Valuer-General's decision.

In ruling on the matter, the court determined that the Valuer-General had indeed misapplied the legislative standard by failing to properly consider the comparative evidence. The court found that the balance of probabilities standard required a more rigorous examination of the evidence than the previous presumption of correctness. Consequently, the court held that the Valuer-General's decision was flawed, and the appeal was allowed. The unimproved value of the Woodstock property was fixed at Six Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($660,000) as at 1 October 2010.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The unimproved value of the aggregation property known as “Woodstock” is fixed in the sum of Six Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($660,000) as at 1 October 2010.

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 17
PARTIES:	Keith Joseph Rea (appellant)
v.
Valuer General (respondent)
FILE NO:	LVA775-11
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:	30 April, 1, 2 May 2012 Submissions closed 16 July 2012
HEARD AT:	Rockhampton
A/PRESIDENT:	PA Smith
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The unimproved value of the aggregation property known as “Woodstock” is fixed in the sum of Six Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($660,000) as at 1 October 2010.
CATCHWORDS:	Practice and Procedure – onus of proof – “presumption of correctness” replaced in Land Valuation Act 2010 by “balance of probabilities” Appeal against annual valuation – evidence as to comparison of various properties – lack of sales evidence
Land Valuation Act 2010 Valuation of Land Act 1944
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