Rea v Valuer-General

Case [2011] QLC 72

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Rea v Valuer-General  [2011] QLC 72
PARTIES: Keith Joseph Rea
(appellant)
v.

Valuer-General
(respondent)
FILE NO: VLA322-10
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Land Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON: 18 November 2011
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD AT: Rockhampton
PRESIDENT: CAC MacDonald
ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   The unimproved value of Lot 17 on PM 105, Lot 26 on PM 170 and Lot 16 on PM 95 in the County of Pelham, Parish of Tiamby, as at 1 October 2009, is determined at Three Hundred and Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($375,000). 

CATCHWORDS: Annual valuation - allowance for degraded land - Valuation of Land Act 1944
APPEARANCES: Mr KJ Rea in person
Ms L Hawkings-Guy, Principal Lawyer, Legal Services, Department of Environment & Resource Management, for the respondent

  1. Keith Joseph Rea (the appellant) is the owner of property used for beef cattle grazing situated at 3271 Drumburle Road, Thangool which is located approximately 43 kms south-west of Biloela.  Mr Rea has appealed against a determination, under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944, by the respondent Valuer-General of the unimproved value of Mr Rea's land as at 1 October 2009.

  2. The valuation issued originally at $435,000 but an objection by Mr Rea against that valuation was allowed and the value was reduced to $425,000.  At the hearing the respondent led evidence to an unimproved value of $390,000 ($462/ha).  Mr Rea estimated the value of the land to be $300,000. 

  3. Mr Rea conducted the appeal and gave evidence in support of his grounds of appeal.  Valuation evidence was given on behalf of the respondent by Mr B Haks who is a registered valuer employed by the Department of Environment and Resource Management. 

Valuation Evidence

  1. Mr Haks said that the subject property is used for beef cattle grazing with some areas with potential for improved pasture development.  He estimated the carrying capacity as 1:4.5 ha or 188 head. 

  2. The property was valued by direct comparison with two sales, details of which were supplied by Mr Haks in his written report.

  3. Sale 1 is a 2,888.141 ha property located approximately 15 kms east of the subject.  This property sold on 2 June 2009 for $2,800,000 ($970/ha).  Mr Haks analyzed the sale to $1,437,500 or $498/ha and applied an unimproved value of $1,400,000 or $485/ha.  The carrying capacity of the sale was 1:4.25 ha. 

  4. Mr Haks said that the sale was superior in area to the subject, it was slightly superior in country mix of forest/scrub lands, slightly superior in overall carrying capacity and slightly superior in location and access, but inferior in land tenure compared with the subject land.  Approximately 65% of the sale was leasehold land.  Overall, Mr Haks considered the sale to be slightly superior to the subject land. 

  5. Sale 2 is a 1,331 ha property which sold on 24 July 2009 for $2,900,000 or $2,180/ha.  The property has a carrying capacity of 1:3.3 ha.  Mr Haks analyzed the sale to $1,089,000 or $818/ha.  He applied…

Continue reading Rea v Valuer-General

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rea v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 72
Case
[2011] QLC 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rea v Valuer-General, the appellant sought a review of the determination of the respondent in relation to the annual valuation of certain land. The dispute centred on the allowance for degraded land as per the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation and application of the statutory provisions regarding the valuation of land that has been degraded. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the respondent's determination appropriately accounted for the degraded nature of the land in question when assessing its unimproved value. This involved examining the extent to which the degradation impacted the land's value and how this should be reflected in the valuation process.

The court found that the respondent's determination did not adequately consider the impact of degradation on the land's value. It was determined that the respondent had applied an incorrect method in assessing the unimproved value, leading to an undervaluation of the property. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and re-determined the unimproved value of the specified lots, setting it at Three Hundred and Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($375,000). This decision underscores the importance of accurately reflecting the condition of the land in the valuation process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The unimproved value of Lot 17 on PM 105, Lot 26 on PM 170 and Lot 16 on PM 95 in the County of Pelham, Parish of Tiamby, as at 1 October 2009, is determined at Three Hundred and Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($375,000).

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.