Steers v Valuer-General - [2012] QLC 65

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 65

PARTIES: Norman Francis Steers
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO: LVA520-12

DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland

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

DELIVERED ON: 27 November 2012 [Ex tempore]

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: Mr PA Smith

ORDERS:
1. The appeal is allowed; and

2. The unimproved value of the subject land is set at Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000) as at 1 October 2011.

CATCHWORDS:
LAND VALUATION – Methodology – Previous Land Court Decisions – one decision not known to respondent

EVIDENCE – Conflicting evidence as to nature of land and impact of flooding – historical evidence that land in natural state unable to be accessed from street

Land Valuation Act 2010
Valuation of Land Act 1944

Goodwin v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 27

NR & PG Tow v Valuer-General [1978] 5 QLCR 378
Hans and Else Grahn v Valuer-General [1992-1993] 14 QLCR 327
Fischer v Valuer-General [1983] 9 QLCR 44
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418

APPEARANCES: Mr Steers, appellant

Mrs Johnson, Principal Lawyer for the respondent

Background

I have before me an appeal under the Land Valuation Act 2010 (LVA) that relates to a matter which has been the subject of two previous hearings before this Court. The second hearing before the Court was in matter LVA820-11, which was an appeal against the valuation of the property as at 1 October 2010. That matter was heard by his Honour Mr Isdale, and he gave written reasons for his decision dismissing the appellant's appeal.
After the close of evidence today, I raised with the parties some concerns I had regarding some inconsistencies in the evidence, and also some inconsistencies as to the existence of what has turned out to be the first time this appellant brought a matter to the Court (at that time with his now deceased wife.)
During the recess for the lunch period today, I, through the fine efforts of the Deputy Registrar and Registrar of the Court, have been provided with a copy of a decision of the Land Court, which unfortunately is not dated, but is a decision relating to Appeal AV89-57 that has been taken from the official records of decisions of the Land Court relating to 1989 AV matters. So, I have no doubt that the document which I now hold is a true and correct copy of the decision of the Land Court handed down in or about 1989. That decision was a matter where the land was valued at $45,000 and the appellants contended for a value of $15,000, and in that matter the appeal was also dismissed.
I will not take any time to go into significant detail as to the facts of the case. They have been adequately set out in the decision of his Honour Isdale of 22 March 2012 and in the 1989 decision. I should add at this point that there can be no…

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 Steers v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 65
Case: [2012] QLC 65
Decision Date: 27 November 2012 [Ex tempore]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Steers v Valuer-General, the dispute involved the valuation of a parcel of land, specifically the determination of its unimproved value. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, with the respondent, the Valuer-General, being the subject of an appeal by the applicant, Steers. The primary issue at the heart of this appeal was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles set out in previous Land Court decisions when determining the unimproved value of the land. This included whether the respondent was bound by a prior decision that was allegedly unknown to them at the time of the original valuation.

The court was required to consider whether the trial judge had erred in law by not taking into account a specific Land Court decision that had not been brought to the respondent's attention. Additionally, the court needed to assess the conflicting evidence presented regarding the nature of the land and the impact of flooding, as well as historical evidence that suggested the land in its natural state could not be accessed from a street. The court's task was to determine if these factors warranted a different valuation of the land than that initially assigned by the Valuer-General.

The Queensland Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed erred in not considering the previously undisclosed Land Court decision. The court held that the respondent was not bound by this decision as it was not known to them at the time of the original valuation. Furthermore, the court gave significant weight to the historical evidence that the land could not be accessed from a street, which impacted its value. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the court set the unimproved value of the land at Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000) as at 1 October 2011. This decision underscored the importance of proper application of legal principles and the consideration of all relevant evidence in land valuation cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed; and

2. The unimproved value of the subject land is set at Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000) as at 1 October 2011.

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:	Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 65
PARTIES:	Norman Francis Steers (appellant)
v
Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO:	LVA520-12
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010.
DELIVERED ON:	27 November 2012 [Ex tempore]
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	Mr PA Smith
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed; and 2. The unimproved value of the subject land is set at Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000) as at 1 October 2011.
CATCHWORDS:	LAND VALUATION – Methodology – Previous Land Court Decisions – one decision not known to respondent EVIDENCE – Conflicting evidence as to nature of land and impact of flooding – historical evidence that land in natural state unable to be accessed from street Land Valuation Act 2010 Valuation of Land Act 1944 Goodwin v Valuer-General [2011] QLC 27 NR & PG Tow v Valuer-General [1978] 5 QLCR 378 Hans and Else Grahn v Valuer-General [1992-1993] 14 QLCR 327 Fischer v Valuer-General [1983] 9 QLCR 44 Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
APPEARANCES:	Mr Steers, appellant
Mrs Johnson, Principal Lawyer for the respondent