Scott v Valuer-General

[2012] QLC 5

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Scott v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0005

PARTIES:

Walter and Agnes Georgina Scott
(appellants)

v.

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO:

VLA220-10

DIVISION:

Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against annual valuation under Valuation of Land Act 1944

DELIVERED ON:

7 February 2012 [Ex Tempore]

DELIVERED AT:

Nanango

HEARD AT:

Nanango

MEMBER:

Mr PA Smith

ORDER:

The report not be received into evidence at this stage.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE ― whether expert valuation report produced on day of hearing should be allowed into evidence ― author not available for cross-examination ― fairness considerations ― no adjournment sought ― report not allowed into evidence

Valuation of Land Act 1944
Land Court Act 2000

Cupo & Anor v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2009] QLC 0016

Ray Fitzpatrick Proprietary Limited v Minister for Planning [2007] NSWLEC 791

APPEARANCES:

Mr Peter Douglas Scott represented the appellants
Mrs Lyndi Hawkings-Guy, Solicitor for the respondent

1. The appellant has provided to the Court by an attachment to an email of 3 February 2012, at 11:26 am, and was copied at the same to the respondent, a document titled “Valuation Report Real Property Walena, located at 110 Hayne Kite Millar Road, Blackbutt South, Queensland 4306, as at 31 January 2012 prepared for Mr Peter Scott”. The valuation is made by Opteon and the author of the report is Mr Brad Volp. Mr Volp is a certified practicing valuer. 

2. The respondent objects to the admission of the report into evidence.  There are a number of grounds for that submission. To begin with, the respondent asserts that the document has been provided late, and accordingly the respondent has not had any time to properly consider the contents of a report and to seek advice from the respondent’s valuer with respect to the contents thereof. The hearing has commenced today. The respondent’s objection on this basis could be cured by an adjournment of the proceeding but that then raises issues of costs. 

3. The respondent also complains that the valuation is not one that would be acceptable to the Court for the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act 1944.  This is readily conceded by the appellants. It is of note that the valuation is at 31st of January 2012, over two years after the valuation date in this matter. However, Mr Scott agrees that the report is relevant as it demonstrates the relative values of various properties to each other.

4. The issue should be fairly simple to dispose of, particularly when one has regards to the authorities, and I refer in particular to the case of Cupo & Anor v Department of Natural Resources and Water,[1] a decision of the then Member Jones of the Land Court.

   [1] [2009] QLC 0016.

5. In that case, a stormwater consulting report was sought to be relied upon by the appellant. The report was only provided at the hearing and the objection was taken that it should have been provided 14 days prior to the hearing. At least in…