Steers v Valuer-General
Case
•
[2012] QLC 12
•22 March 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 12
[2012] QLC 12
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Appeal
-
Onus of Proof
-
Expert Evidence
-
Comparable Sales
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 12
Most Recent Citation
Body Corporate for ‘Nautilus Gold Coast' CTS 5710 v Valuer-General (No 2) [2019] QLC 5
Cases Citing This Decision
46
F A Pidgeon & Son Pty Ltd v Valuer-General; 310 Ann Street Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2)
[2019] QLC 25
Lake Maroona Pty Ltd v Valuer-General
[2019] QLC 23
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Valuer-General
[2009] NSWLEC 225
Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2005] QLC 11
Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Valuer-General
[2009] NSWLEC 225