Steinberger v Valuer-General
[2014] QLC 23
•29 May 2014
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Steinberger v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 23 PARTIES: Terry Alan Steinberger
(appellant)v Valuer-General
(respondent)FILE NO: LVA281-13 DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: General application DELIVERED ON: 29 May 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: 25 February 2014 HEARD AT: Brisbane PRESIDENT: CAC MacDonald ORDER: The application is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Valuation - Land Valuation Act - Valuer-General decision on objection - duty to give reasons - whether Land Court can enforce duty - limited jurisdiction of Court.
Judicial Review - administrative action - jurisdiction in Supreme Court under Judicial Review Act - Land Court has no jurisdiction - power of Land Court to make declaration of no assistance.
Practice and procedure - disclosure - whether Valuer-General has duty to disclosure material relevant to objection decision - application of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
Acts Interpretation Act 1954
Judicial Review Act 1991
Land Court Act 2000
Land Court Rules 2000
Land Valuation Act 2010
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999Maroochy Shire Council v Maroochydore Central Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 24 QLCR 77
Stanfield v Brisbane City Council (1990-91) 13 QLCR 32APPEARANCES: Mr TA Steinberger, the appellant, in person
Mr TL Laing of Counsel, for the respondentSOLICITORS: In-house Legal, Department of Natural Resources and Mines for the respondent
Background
In August 2013, Terry Alan Steinberger (the appellant) filed an appeal in this Court against a decision on objection issued by the Valuer-General (the respondent) under the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the Act). The appellant had objected to the valuation of his land as at 1 October 2012 and the decision on objection was made in response to that objection.
This decision deals with a general application filed by the appellant on 14 February 2014 in which the appellant said that the respondent had failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision on objection and sought relief in respect of that failure. The respondent submitted that the application should be dismissed.
Statutory provisions
Section 4 of the Land Valuation Act provides that the main purpose of the Act is to provide for how land is to be valued for particular other Acts. Chapter 2 of the Act deals with the valuation process and sets out the bases on which valuations are to be made. Chapter 3 is entitled "Objections to Valuations". Section 105(1) provides that an owner may object to a valuation of the owner's land. Section 147(1) provides that, subject to s 148 (which is not relevant here), the Valuer-General must consider and decide a properly made objection. Section 150 provides -
"150 Decision
The decision on the objection must be to -
(a)allow the objection on the terms and to the extent the valuer-general considers appropriate; or
(b)disallow the objection; or
(c)disallow the objection and change the amount of the valuation."
Section 151 provides -
"151 Notice of objection decision
(1)The valuer-general must, as soon as practicable after deciding an objection, give the objector notice of the decision on the objection.
(2) An objection decision notice must state the following -
(a) the day the notice was issued;
(b) the reasons for the decision;
(c) that the objector has a right, subject to section 155, to appeal to the Land Court against the decision;
(d) how, and the period within which, the objector may appeal.
(3) In this section -
decision, on the objection, includes -
(a) if an objection ground concerns a decision on a deduction application for the land - whether or not the claim has been allowed; and
(b) if the objector claims a site improvement deduction or a higher site improvement deduction - the amount of the site improvement deduction decided."
Chapter 4 of the Act is entitled "Valuation Appeals". Section 155(1) provides that an objector may appeal to the Land Court against the objection decision for the objection.
Section 169 provides -
"169 Nature of hearing
(1)The hearing must be limited to the grounds stated in the valuation appeal notice.
(2) The appeal must be by way of a rehearing.
…(3)However, the appellant has the onus of proof for each of the grounds of appeal."
Section 170 provides -
"170 Order on valuation appeal
The Land Court may -
(a) confirm the valuation appealed against; or
(b) reduce or increase the valuation to the amount it considers necessary to correctly make the valuation under this Act.
…"
Issues
The decision on objection issued by the respondent on 19 June 2013 relevantly stated
that -
"I wish to advise that the objection against the valuation of $470,000 effective from 30 June 2013 with a date of valuation of 1 October 2012 has been decided and the valuation amount has been altered to $380,000.
The reasons for my decision are:
·When compared to similar properties, the delegate decided a change in the valuation should be made.
·When compared to sale prices of similar properties, the delegate decided a change in the valuation should be made."
The appellant subsequently filed the appeal in this Court, in which he estimated the site value of his property at $321,750. The grounds of appeal were -
"(1)The valuation reduction was significantly less than that sought ($380,000 decided vs $321,750 sought).
(2)Reasons for the decision are required by section 151 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 and those provided did not satisfy that requirement, as reasonably interpreted.
(a)In the absence of a definition of "reasons" in the Act, the customary or commonly understood meaning of the word within the relevant context should reasonably be applied.
1. while "reasons" for whether or not any change is warranted might be satisfied by a mere high-level abstract motive (eg. "when compared to similar properties" or "when compared to sale prices of similar properties"),
2. "reasons" for the core of the issue at question here (ie, the valuation amount) can only be satisfied by indicating at some meaningful level of detail (in the eyes/mind of the objecting party) how the valuation amount was calculated or derived.
(b)Reasons required by the Act are intended primarily for the benefit of the objecting party; otherwise reasons serve no substantive purpose as a requirement under the Act.
i. To be of benefit to the objecting party, reasons should be in terms useful/meaningful to the objecting party, not simply in terms useful/meaningful or convenient to the valuer that provide no greater understanding of the decision in the eyes/mind of the objecting party.
ii. The reasons given were not useful/meaningful to this appellant as they do not provide justification for the amount decided at any level of detail as to be comprehensible, and the valuation amount was the core element of the original objection.
(c)The purported reasons for the valuation reduction were incomplete, as explained below.
i. The "decision on an objection" to a valuation is not simply whether or not to make a change but also, inherently and more importantly, includes what the valuation is changed to (the core of the matter at hand).
ii. There was no justification provided as to why the sought valuation amount of $321,750 was not deemed appropriate or why the premises behind my claim were deemed invalid.
iii. Conversely, there was no justification as to why the decided valuation amount of $380,000 was deemed appropriate and what assumptions, criteria, measures or calculations were used to arrive at that amount."
In the general application filed on 14 February 2014, the appellant, inter alia, asked the Court to order, by judicial review or otherwise:
(a) that the appeal be allowed, and that summary judgment be granted, with respect to appellant's second ground of appeal;
(b) that the Valuer-General be directed to provide the Court, by a specific date, with a written statement of reasons for the 19 June 2013 decision on objection, consisting of the following elements, separately identified:
(i)the reasons for the decision, including an explanation of the actual path of reasoning;
(ii)the findings on material questions of fact; and
(iii)the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.
The application also sought orders in relation to the date of hearing of the appeal.
The respondent has submitted that the appellant's application should be dismissed because the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the orders sought, the general application lacks merit and there is no basis for granting the relief sought by the appellant.
Jurisdiction
The appellant's application for the provision of a written statement of reasons for the decision on objection was based on the premise that the reasons given in the notice of decision on objection were inadequate. The appellant referred to s 151(2)(b) of the Act which provides that an objection decision notice must state the reasons for the decision, and relied on s 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 which provides that -
"27B Content of statement of reasons for decision
If an Act requires a tribunal, authority, body or person making a decision to give written reasons for the decision (whether the expression 'reasons', 'grounds' or another expression is used), the instrument giving the reasons must also -
(a) set out the findings on material questions of fact; and
(b) refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based."The appellant submitted that the reasons given did not comply with s 27B. The respondent had not identified which properties were claimed to be similar to the subject, in what way they were similar, when they were sold and the sale prices. Further, the respondent had not explained why the change in the valuation meant that the subject property was worth $380,000 rather than any other amount.
Leaving aside at this stage the question of whether the reasons given for the objection decision were adequate or complete, the first issue to be determined is whether this Court has power to order the respondent to provide additional and more detailed reasons for the decision on objection, on the assumption that the reasons provided were insufficient.
Judicial Review Act
The respondent submitted that the orders sought by the appellant are orders seeking administrative relief which are orders outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The appellant had conceded that the decision on objection was a decision to which the Judicial Review Act 1991 applied, and had argued, in the alternative, that the Court had jurisdiction to conduct a judicial review. By its very nature, the respondent submitted, the giving of reasons for a decision, or questions regarding the adequacy of those reasons are administrative actions.
Although the appellant did say, in Section E of his supplementary written submission, filed on 13 February 2014, that the Valuer-General's decision on objection was a decision to which the Judicial Review Act applied, the appellant abandoned that submission at the hearing of the general application. The appellant also said at that hearing that he was not seeking judicial review under the Judicial Review Act but was seeking the reasons for the objection decision, which the Valuer-General was obliged to give to an objector pursuant to s 151(2)(b) of the Act, to enable the appellant to consider whether or not to pursue the appeal and if so to prepare properly for the appeal.
Although the appellant did not pursue his submissions under the Judicial Review Act I have considered the issue for the sake of completeness and have concluded that I do not have the power to direct the respondent to provide an additional written statement of reasons under the Judicial Review Act. Section 19 of that Act provides that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine applications made to it under that Act. The Land Court is a statutory court and its jurisdiction is defined by s 5 of the Land Court Act 2000 which provides that the Land Court has the jurisdiction given to it under that Act or another Act. In Stanfield v Brisbane City Council[1], the Land Appeal Court said -
"The Land Court and the Land Appeal Court are courts of statutory creation and their jurisdiction depends entirely upon the conferral of power by statute. These courts cannot assume a jurisdiction which they do not possess, convenient though it may sometimes seem to be."
There is no provision in the Judicial Review Act conferring jurisdiction on the Land Court.
[1] (1990-91) 13 QLCR 32 at 38.
Land Valuation Act
The appellant submitted that without an adequate reasons statement, the basis of an appeal is frustrated as the appeal is premised on the receipt by a landowner of a compliant reasons statement, to enable the landowner to make an informed decision as to whether to appeal the Valuer-General's decision. The jurisdiction to order the giving of reasons is granted by the appeal right given in s 155(1) of the Act, which jurisdiction is exclusive by virtue of s 5(2) of the Land Court Act[2], the appellant said.
[2] Section 5(2) of the Land Court Act 2000 provides that -
"(2)If jurisdiction for a proceeding is expressly conferred on the court under this Act or another Act, the jurisdiction is exclusive."
When the Act is read as a whole, the extent of the Land Court's jurisdiction becomes clear. Section 105(1) provides that an owner may object to a valuation of the owner's land. Section 147(1) provides that the Valuer-General must consider and decide a properly made objection. It follows that the decision made by the Valuer-General under s 147(1) is a decision as to the valuation. Similarly, it follows that the appeal right given in s 155(1) to appeal against the objection decision for the objection, is a right to appeal against the valuation. Section 155 is found in Chapter 4 of the Act which is entitled 'Valuation appeals'. Part 5 of Chapter 4 is headed 'Hearing of valuation appeals' and s 167 provides that Part 5 applies for the hearing of a valuation appeal. Section 170 sets out the orders which the Land Court may make on the valuation appeal. The effect of these provisions, in my opinion, is that it is the valuation that is fundamentally in issue in the appeal proceedings and the Court's jurisdiction is limited to dealing with that issue. Although s 155(1) of the Act provides that an objector may appeal to the Land Court against the objection decision, there is no provision in the Act which gives the Land Court power to order the respondent to provide reasons for the decision. Specifically, although s 151(2)(b) may impose a duty on the Valuer-General to state the reasons for the objection decision, the section does not provide that the Land Court can enforce any such duty. Moreover, there is no general power given to the Court under the Act to enforce any duties imposed by the Act on the Valuer-General. Nor can such a power be inferred from the Court's general power to make declarations granted under s 33 of the Land Court Act[3].
[3] Maroochy Shire Council v Maroochydore Central Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 24 QLCR 77 at 85, [31]-[33].
In the circumstances it is not necessary, or indeed relevant, for me to decide whether the reasons given for the objection decision were adequate.
Other matters
The appellant's application may be construed in two ways -
1. that the appellant is seeking an order directing the respondent to prepare an additional written statement of reasons containing the details specified by the appellant in the application; or
2. that the respondent be directed to provide to the appellant any existing documents which contain those details.
My reasons above indicate that I do not consider that I have the power to order the Valuer-General to prepare and provide an additional statement of reasons for the objection decision.
However, if there are in existence documents directly relevant to the matters in issue in the appeal, the respondent would appear to be under a duty to disclose those documents to the appellant pursuant to rule 211 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR)[4]. The appellant has not applied for an order for disclosure.
[4]Section 4(1) of the Land Court Rules 2000 provides that if the Land Court Rules do not provide for a matter in relation to a proceeding in the Court and the UCPR would provide for the matter, the UCPR apply in relation to the matter with necessary charges.
In addition, although I have concluded that I have no power to order the respondent to prepare and provide a further statement of reasons, I should also make it clear that the appellant will not be left in ignorance as to the evidence which the respondent intends to call to support the valuation amount. Before the substantive appeal proceeds, both parties will be ordered to exchange statements setting out the evidence on which they intend to rely at the hearing of the appeal. No doubt the appellant would say that such an order does not address his concerns that, in the absence of any further reasons for the objection decision, he is unable to make an informed decision as to whether to continue with the appeal. One answer to that concern is that the appellant will be fully informed as to the respondent's case when the statements of evidence are exchanged, and the appellant can decide then whether to continue with the appeal.
I consider that this is the appropriate process to be adopted because of the nature of the appeal proceedings under the Act. Section 169(2) provides that the appeal must be by way of rehearing. Although s 169(1) limits the hearing of the appeal to be grounds stated in the valuation appeal notice, s 169 otherwise does not limit the evidence which may be adduced at the hearing of the appeal. In particular, the evidence is not confined to the evidence available to the Valuer-General at the time of the objections decision. It follows that the appellant will only be in a position to make an informed decision as to whether to continue with the appeal when he has had the opportunity to read the respondent's statement of evidence.
My conclusion is that the application should be dismissed.
ORDER:
The application is dismissed.
CAC MacDONALD
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
0
1
6