Rodney v Valuer-General - [2014] QLC 26

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Rodney v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 26

PARTIES:
Philip Anthony Rodney & Elizabeth Alfia Mary Rodney

(appellants)

v

Valuer-General

(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA808-12

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Appeal against annual valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON: 16 June 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Cairns

MEMBER: His Honour, WL Cochrane

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
Land Valuation Act 2010

Statutory Valuation ― Land Valuation Act 2010 – Unimproved Value – Improved Land – Evidentiary Onus.

Land Valuation Act 2010
Valuation of Land Act 1944

Lamb v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 0038

Lawson v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0027

Nimmo v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 0028

Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 12

APPEARANCES: Appellants in person represented by Mr Rodney.
Mr P Prasad – Legal Officer for the respondent.

Background

This is the decision in an appeal against the valuation of the Valuer-General, in respect of land located at 9 Seafarer Street South Mission Beach which is in the Cassowary Coast Regional Council area of Far North Queensland.
The valuation appealed against was made as on 1 October 2011 with the date of effect from 30 June 2012.
The land is otherwise described as Lot 141 on Plan 737608 Parish of Rockingham and has an area of 1000 m².
The land is burdened by an easement in Gross 601075170 burdening the land to the Council of the Shire of Cardwell over Easement C on RP 743174.
The subject property is located approximately 11.5 km south by road of the Mission Beach Post Office at South Mission Beach.
South Mission Beach, a beachside village located in the tourist region of the ‘Island Coast’ is about 25 km east of Tully, 60 km south of Innisfail and 145 km south of Cairns.
The setting of the subject land is well expressed by Mr Donnelly the valuer called by the respondent in the following paragraphs extracted from his report.[1]
“The subject property is located approximately 11.5 kilometres southerly (by road) of the Mission Beach Post Office at 9 Seafarer Street, South Mission Beach.
South Mission Beach is approximately 25 kilometres easterly of Tully, 60 kilometres south of Innisfail and 145 kilometres south of Cairns.
South Mission Beach is a beachside village located in the tourist region of the ‘Island Coast”, which is centred on the townships of Bingil Bay, Mission Beach, Wongaling Beach and South Mission Beach.
Good local amenities exist within the “Island Coast” strip with a primary school, post office, shopping centre, hotel, restaurants etc. with more comprehensive district amenities available in nearby Tully.
The subject property is near the southern end of South Mission Beach and is surrounded by residential development.”
[1] Exhibit 8, page 3 section 11.
Then, later in his report[2] he describes the property in the following terms:
“The subject property is an inside allotment on Seafarer Street that possesses good ocean and island view directly along Dunn Street…

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 Rodney v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Rodney v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 26
Case: [2014] QLC 26
Decision Date: 16 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rodney appealed against the valuation of his property for land tax purposes. The dispute centred on the application of the Unimproved Value (UIV) methodology under the Land Valuation Act 2010, specifically whether the valuation tribunal had correctly applied the principles in assessing the value of Rodney's land. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue was whether the tribunal had appropriately determined the UIV of Rodney's property, considering both the unimproved and potentially improved state of the land. Rodney argued that the tribunal had failed to adequately account for the potential improvements on the land, thereby undervaluing it. Conversely, the Valuer-General contended that the tribunal's valuation was correct and that Rodney had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of UIV.

The court examined the statutory framework and found that the tribunal had followed the correct methodology for determining UIV. It held that the onus was on Rodney to provide evidence of the potential improvements and their impact on the land value. Given the lack of such evidence, the tribunal's valuation was upheld. The court also noted that the tribunal's decision was supported by the evidence presented and did not demonstrate any error of law or principle.

The appeal was dismissed, and the valuation as determined by the tribunal was upheld. The court's decision reinforced the principle that the onus is on the landowner to provide evidence to rebut the presumption of UIV, particularly where potential improvements are concerned.

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:	Rodney v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 26
PARTIES:	Philip Anthony Rodney & Elizabeth Alfia Mary Rodney (appellants)
v
Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO:	LVA808-12
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against annual valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:	16 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Cairns
MEMBER:	His Honour, WL Cochrane
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	Land Valuation Act 2010 Statutory Valuation ― Land Valuation Act 2010 – Unimproved Value – Improved Land – Evidentiary Onus. Land Valuation Act 2010 Valuation of Land Act 1944 Lamb v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 0038 Lawson v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0027 Nimmo v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 0028 Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 12
APPEARANCES:	Appellants in person represented by Mr Rodney. Mr P Prasad – Legal Officer for the respondent.