The Bromet Family Trust v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

The Bromet Family Trust contested the valuation of their land located in Bauple, Queensland, against the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources. The Land Court heard the appeal against the valuation as per the Valuation of Land Act 1944. The key issues in the case were the comparison of sales, the added value of improvements, the value of timber, and the nature of the land. The Bromet Family Trust appealed the Chief Executive's determination of the unimproved value of the land, arguing that it should be $13,000 instead of the determined $26,500. The court examined the nature of the land, the value of improvements, the value of timber, and the comparison of sales to determine the outcome of the case.

In its decision, the court found that there was no inconsistency between the parties in respect of the nature of the soils or the impact of fauna and flora intrusions upon the subject land from the adjoining State forest. The court allowed $1,000 for the dams and $10,000 for the three dams on the subject land. The court also found that there was little difference between the parties in respect of access to the two parcels. In the matter of the impact of the shape of the subject land, the court concluded that there would be little difference in the value of the subject land and Portion 168 for that purpose alone.

Regarding the value of improvements, the court found that the apportionments adopted by the Bromet Family Trust may not constitute the added value of those improvements. The court emphasised that it is the "added value" of the improvements which is to be assessed, rather than relying solely on personal apportionments. The court concluded that the valuer's approach to assessing the added value of the improvements was fair and reasonable.

As for the value of timber, the court accepted a notional value of $20,000 for the existing timbers upon the adjoining parcel (Sale 2 - Lot 168) to be excluded from the unimproved value of the land.

In comparing the sales, the court found that the best evidence lay in comparisons with the adjoining parcel (Sale 2 - Lot 168). The court concluded that the valuer's approach to comparing the sales and applying the appropriate rate per hectare was fair and reasonable.

Ultimately, the court found that the onus of proof had not been effectively discharged by the Bromet Family Trust. The appeal was dismissed, and the unimproved value of the land as determined by the Chief Executive at $26,500 was affirmed.