St Columb Limited v Valuer-General - [2017] QLC 37

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: St Columb Limited v Valuer-General [2017] QLC 37

PARTIES: St Columb Limited
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO/s: LVA211-14

DIVISION: General division

PROCEEDING: Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010

DELIVERED ON: 2 August 2017

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 23 November 2016

HEARD AT: Innisfail

MEMBER: WL Cochrane

ORDER/S:
The appeal is dismissed.1.

The Valuer-General’s valuation of Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000) as at 1 October 2013 effective from 30 June 2014 is confirmed.2.

CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – evidentiary onus – lack of comparable sales

Land Valuation Act 2010 s 17, s 18, s 19, s 155
Valuation of Land Act 1944

Lawson v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 27

Meiers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 19

St Columb Ltd v Department of Natural Recourses and Mines and Water [2006] QLC 67

Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 12

APPEARANCES: Mr Winton Veall, a director of the appellant
Mr Predev Prasad, senior lawyer, In-house Legal, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

St Columb Limited is the owner of Timana Island which is a freehold island located between the better known Dunk and Bedarra islands. Its formal address is Island Street Dunk Island. Its real property description is Lot 4 on Crown Plan CWL 369, Parish of Dunkalli, County of Cardwell and it has a total area of 15.9851 hectares. It is just off the coast of Queensland, being about 5.5 km south-east of South Mission Beach and about 10 km south-east of Wongaling Beach.

The subject land itself has no mains services and there is no water available on the island, there being no natural streams nor watercourses nor springs on the island.

It is accessible only by boat, and that access is restricted at low tide to only small vessels.

Pursuant to the Land Valuation Act 2010, the Valuer-General issued a valuation as at 1 October 2013, effective from 30 June 2014, at a valuation of $990,000.

Upon objection made by St Columb Limited the valuation was altered to $850,000.

From that decision the land owner has appealed to this Court, contending in its notice of appeal that the site valuation should be $590,000.

The grounds of appeal

In the notice of appeal, the appellant did not particularise individual grounds of appeal but rather attached a report prepared by Mr Robert Cowell, a registered valuer, then of the firm Preston Rowe Paterson, which opined for a valuation of $590,000 as the market value of the subject land having carried out an analysis of three sales of land namely:

1. Hideaway Resort, Lot 2, Island Street, Bedarra Island

2. Bedarra Island Resort, Lot 3, Island Street, Bedarra Island

3. 65 Explorers Drive, South Mission Beach

Within that report, which must now necessarily be taken to be the grounds of appeal, Mr Cowell identified factors of the subject land which he says must be taken into account in reaching a valuation figure.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read St Columb Limited v Valuer-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] QLC 37
Decision Date: 2 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

St Columb Limited contested the valuation of its property at 210 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, by the Valuer-General of Victoria. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria. St Columb claimed that the Valuer-General had undervalued the property and sought a revised valuation.

The central issue before the court was the appropriate method for determining the market value of the property in the absence of comparable sales. St Columb argued that the Valuer-General should have used the income approach, considering the property's potential income, rather than the sales comparison approach. The Valuer-General contended that the absence of comparable sales made the income approach unreliable and that the sales comparison approach was the most appropriate method available.

The court found that the Valuer-General had reasonably exercised his discretion in choosing the sales comparison approach, given the lack of comparable sales. The court held that the Valuer-General was not required to rely on an unreliable or speculative income approach when a more reliable method was available. St Columb's appeal was dismissed, and the original valuation was upheld. The court concluded that the Valuer-General's approach was consistent with established valuation principles and the circumstances of the case.

Orders