Legal Research
Cases
Steers v Valuer-General

Steers v Valuer-General

Case [2012] QLC 12 22 March 2012

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0012

PARTIES:Norman Francis Steers
(Appellant)
  v.
  Valuer-General
  (Respondent)

FILE NO:LVA820-11
DIVISION:General Division
PROCEEDING:  Appeal against valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:                  22 March 2012
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARD AT:Brisbane
HEARD ON:  29 February 2012
MEMBER:Mr WA Isdale
ORDER/S:1.      The appeal is dismissed.
2.The Valuer-General’s valuation of Five Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($515,000) is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: Land Valuation Act 2010, ss 4(1), 7, 45, 169
Cattanach v Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (1962) 9 LGRA 352
Crompton v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 32 LGRA 8
ISPT Pty Ltd v Melbourne City Council & Anor [2008] VR 447

JL and I Qualischefski v Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 167
NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378

APPEARANCES: Mr NF Steers, the appellant, appeared on his own behalf
Mrs T Johnson, Principal Lawyer, Legal Services, Department of Environment and Resource Management, for the respondent

The Appeal

Mr Steers owns 1.904 ha of land at 17 Brentwick Street, Chermside. As required by the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the Act) the respondent valued it as at 1 October 2010. That valuation of $515,000 unimproved value is the subject of the present appeal.

The Appellant’s case

The appellant gave evidence and tendered documentation which included copies of plans and photographs as well as statements from a number of persons. The sole witness for the appellant was Mr Steers who was also his own advocate. Mr Steers explained that he had built his own home on the land in the mid 1970s and had built up the land with “approximately 2 million cubic metres”[1] of fill. He expressed the view that the valuation should now be 10 times what he purchased the land for in 1970 and hence should be $50,000. He commented twice in the course of the proceedings that he had refused an offer of $10,000,000 for the land for development with home units. Mr Steers did not refer the Court to any body of evidence of sales of land in support of his contention for a valuation of $50,000. He emphasised the need to consider the land in its unimproved state and directed attention to its susceptibility to flooding and the presence of an easement for drainage purposes and an ecological corridor on the land.
[1] Exhibit 1, first page and second page. This figure was repeated in Mr Steers’ oral evidence.
Mr Steers informed the Court that he is a carpenter and also described an extensive background in the civil construction industry that saw him performing leading practical roles in building infrastructure of national significance. He is not qualified as a valuer of land.
On behalf of the respondent, evidence was given by Mr Sunil Philip Kunnath, a Registered Valuer, Associate Member of the Australian Property Institute and accredited Certified Practising Valuer. Mr Kunnath holds the degree of Master of Property Studies from the University of Queensland and has had three years experience valuing residential…

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 12
Case: [2012] QLC 12
Decision Date: 22 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Land Court of Queensland, the case of Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 0012 involved an appeal by Norman Francis Steers against the valuation of his land by the Valuer-General. The land, located at 17 Brentwick Street, Chermside, was valued at $515,000 as at 1 October 2010. The appellant, who built his own home on the land in the mid-1970s, argued that the valuation should be 10 times what he paid for it in 1970, which he estimated to be $50,000. He did not provide any evidence of sales of land to support his contention.

The court considered the legal issues surrounding the valuation method used by the respondent's expert, Mr Kunnath, who had valued the land using the method of direct comparison of the land with sales of other land. The court found that the method used by Mr Kunnath was in line with established legal principles, and the appellant had not provided any evidence to support his proposed method. Additionally, the court noted that the appellant, who was not a qualified valuer of land, had an inconsistent approach to his evidence, particularly regarding the amount of fill on the land.

The court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated that the valuer could not compare the subject land with the sale properties. The valuer had provided detailed comparisons in his report and there was no expert evidence to suggest that the sales were not comparable or that the valuation was invalidated by error. The court also found that the respondent's expert, Mr Kunnath, had conducted his valuation in a professional manner and provided clear explanations during cross-examination.

In conclusion, the appellant had not established a basis for the Court to be satisfied that the unimproved value of the subject land was $50,000 or that it should be arrived at by the method contended for by the appellant. The Court accepted the evidence of Mr Kunnath and his opinion of the value of the subject land.

Orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The Valuer-General's valuation of Five Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($515,000) is confirmed.

Orders