Thomason v The Valuer-General
[1990] QLAC 25
•27 August 1990
|
BRISBANE.
27th August, 1990
Re: Appeal against Land Court's determination
of unimproved value -
Shire of Caboolture.
AV89-121.
Allan Raymond Thomason
v.
The Valuer-General
J U D G M E N T
The Valuer-General has completed an annual valuation of the lands in the Shire of Caboolture as at 31st March, 1988. Under Valuation Roll No 24375/20000 he has revalued a 24.28 hectare parcel of land owned by Allan Raymond Thomason at $36,500. This is 10 percent above the previous valuation determined as at 31st March, 1987. Mr Thomason exercised his right of appeal to the Land Court against the valuation on the ground that "the valuation is not supported by sales of comparable land". When the appeal came before the Land Court it was, by consent, heard with seven other appeals by landholders with Mr Thomason acting as agent for all appellants. In the result all of the appeals were dismissed. Mr Thomason has exercised his right of appeal to the Land Appeal Court against that decision in respect of his own land.
The decision of the Court below says -
"Mr Thomason gave evidence in the matters and also called John Henry Charles Bateman, another of the appellants. Neither witness furnished to the Court any comparable sales evidence but chose instead to comment on the respondent Valuer-General's sales evidence. Thus it obviously became a difficult task for the appellants to handle the effect of the onus provisions, and indeed had the respondent Valuer-General elected not to call evidence, then there would have been no analysed sales evidence before the Court and the appeals must have failed on that basis.
The Valuer-General called evidence from Registered Valuer Gregory Patrick Crowley who valued all the appeal lands. No attack was made by Mr Thomason or Mr Bateman on Mr Crowley's description of the physical characteristics of any of the appeal lands, and the appellants limited their evidence to a claim that the two sales used by the Valuer-General as a basis for each valuation were not sales which showed primary production values but sales which were tainted with potential for subdivision. "
As appears from the Record of Proceedings in the Land Court, the approach of the Valuer-General has been to increase the valuations of these types of primary production land by 10 percent over the previous valuation. He has relied on two sales to support a conclusion that values had increased since that valuation.
These were a sale from Hewitt to Barron and one from Belford and Fritsch to Winkel. Mr Crowley said that the analysis of these sales amply supported the 10 percent increase in value which has been applied. Other sales showed greater increases and none show a lower increase.
Mr Thomason appeared as agent in appeal J.H. Benson and H.L. Hudlow v. The Valuer-General (AV89-119) which was heard by this Court immediately preceding the hearing of his own appeal. In that matter he gave evidence concerning the two sales and, by agreement between the parties, the transcript of the evidence given by Mr Thomason and by Mr Crowley in that case which related to grazing values were admitted as an exhibit in this case to avoid unnecessary repetition of oral evidence. In the result no further evidence was adduced by either party before this Court.
It is the contention of Mr Thomason that it was inappropriate for Mr Crowley to use the sale from Hewitt to Barron as a basis for valuing the subject land. It is his claim that Mr Crowley has in analysing that sale made insufficient allowance for the value of the improvements which exist upon that land as part of a dairy. Before us in cross-examination, Mr Thomason says that at the time of the sale there was no dairy milk quota attaching to the land but he goes further in the evidence and says "the contract was conditional on getting the property recertified, a certificate of registration, and being able to transfer quota. That in fact happened because of the supply for 12 months." This evidence was not adduced in the Court below and the statement has not been challenged before us. It would thus appear that this was a conditional contract with the sale dependent upon the transfer of a milk quota. We are of opinion that in the circumstances it is inappropriate to use this sale as a basis of valuation.
The Court appreciates that it would be a mammoth task for the Valuer-General to make detailed investigations of all of the sales which may occur in a shire during a valuation period but once a valuer has selected certain sales as
possible bases for his valuation, it would be desirable for the valuer to interview the parties to those sales and obtain a copy of the relevant contract to satisfy himself that there are no conditions in the contract which would cast doubt upon the sale as a reliable basis of valuation.
The other sale used by Mr Crowley is the sale from Belford and Fritsch to Winkel. While the country may not be ideally comparable as claimed by Mr Thomason it does support the contention of Mr Crowley that an increase has been shown in the values of small grazing holdings since the previous valuation and as such is a suitable basis of valuation.
Mr Thomason acknowledges that, under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act, he is limited to the ground set forth in his notice of appeal and the burden of proving such ground is upon him. His ground of appeal is "The valuation is not supported by sales of comparable land". The point is a very short one. In fact there is sufficient support in the Belford and Fritsch to Winkel sale to support the 10 percent increase, and nothing appears to the contrary. There were other sales showing greater increases and no sale showing an increase lower than 10 percent. There are no sales introduced by the appellant to rebut his conclusion and we accept it. There is nothing to support the argument that the general increase was made on an invalid basis or that it was ultra vires. The destruction of one of the sales put forward by the Valuer-General does not leave the decision without foundation. In the result we find that the appellant has not discharged the statutory onus of proof cast upon him and the appeal must fail.
The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Land Court is affirmed.
J.
Judge of the Supreme Court
President of the Land Court
Member of the Land Court
0
0
0