Roberts v Department of Natural Resources and Mines

In the case of Roberts v Department of Natural Resources and Mines, the dispute centred around the valuation of two properties, specifically determining their unimproved value as at a specified date. The case was heard in the Queensland Land Court. The appellant, Roberts, challenged the assessment of the properties by the respondent, the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

The court was tasked with several key legal issues. First, it had to decide on the appropriate sales to use for the valuation of the subject properties. The court needed to assess whether sales in nearby areas could be applied despite no comparable sales being available in the exact vicinity of the subject properties. Another issue was the appropriate methodology to value a heritage-listed property, particularly determining the unimproved value by assuming no heritage listing and then considering the effect, if any, of the listing. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if an allowance should be made for the increased cost of maintenance of heritage improvements, and if the previous court precedent, which did not include such an allowance, should be followed.

The court determined that while the subject properties were located in an area where no comparable sales were available, sales in a nearby area could be used provided there was a comparison of the general attributes of the two areas. Although there were differences, the overall similarity was sufficient to apply the nearby sales. The court also held that sales influenced by the potential for multi-unit development and subdivision were not acceptable for assessing the subject properties as single unit residential. Regarding the heritage-listed property, the court ruled that the appropriate methodology was to first determine the unimproved value by assuming no heritage listing, and then to assess the effect, if any, of the listing. The court departed from previous precedent by not including an allowance for increased maintenance costs, but did make a 20% allowance for the effect of the heritage listing due to the restrictions it imposed on redevelopment and the resultant views.

The court's final orders were that the appeal was allowed, and the unimproved value of the two properties was determined to be $240,000 as at 1 October 1999.