Toomey v Valuer-General - [2017] QLC 13

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Toomey v Valuer-General [2017] QLC 13

PARTIES:
John Joseph Toomey
(appellant)

v

Valuer-General
(respondent)

FILE NO/s: LVA 311-15

LVA 312-15

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Appeal against annual land valuation

DELIVERED ON: 17 March 2017

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 8 December 2015

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: WL Cochrane

ORDER/S:
1.   Appeal LVA311-15 is allowed.

2.   The site value of Lot 4 on RP 229830, Parish of Oxley (521 Honour Avenue, Sherwood) is determined at Seven Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($760,000) as at 1 October 2014.

3.   Appeal LVA312-15 is allowed.

4.   The site value of Lot 3 on RP 229830, Parish of Oxley (8 Prospect Street, Sherwood) is determined at Seven Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($730,000) as at 1 October 2014.

CATCHWORDS:
COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ONUS OF PROOF
PROPERTY – VALUATION – VALUATION – METHODOLOGY – USE OF RELEVANT SALES BEST EVIDENCE – FACTORS CAUSING DISAMENITY
Land Valuation Act 2010
Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
Steers v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 12

Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 11

APPEARANCES: The appellant in person.
P Prasad (senior lawyer), In-house Legal, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, for the respondent.

John Joseph Toomey owns two lots of land in the Brisbane suburb of Sherwood. The first lot is located at 521 Honour Avenue, Sherwood and is otherwise described as having a Property ID 9089886 and has a real property description of Lot 4 on RP 229830, Parish of Oxley. It has an area of 1297m².

That land is on the corner of Prospect Street and Honour Avenue and is developed with Mr Toomey’s home on it.

The other lot of land is located at 8 Prospect Street, Sherwood and is otherwise described as having a Property ID 9090839 and a real property description of Lot 3 on RP 229830, Parish of Oxley. The Prospect Street land has an area of 733m² and is developed with a residence on it.

The two lots of land adjoin each other.

For convenience in this decision I shall refer to them as the Prospect Street land and the Honour Avenue land to distinguish them. Each of the lots of land is classified as “Character Residential 1 (General) (CR1 Area)” in the Brisbane City Plan 2014 which was effective from 30 June 2014.

Both lots also form part of the “Sherwood – Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan” which was effective from 15 April 2011 and each lot is also identified in the Dwelling House Character Overlay pursuant to the town planning scheme.

Pursuant to his statutory obligations, on 1 October 2014 the Valuer-General issued an official valuation in respect of each of Mr Toomey’s lots of land. Those valuations were to take effect on 30 June 2015.

In the valuation as at 1 October 2014 the Honour Avenue land was valued at $800,000 and the Prospect Street land was valued at $770,000.

As was his entitlement pursuant to the Land…

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 Toomey v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Toomey v Valuer-General [2017] QLC 13
Case: [2017] QLC 13
Decision Date: 17 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Toomey v Valuer-General involved a dispute concerning the valuation of a property by the Valuer-General of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Toomey, sought a review of the valuation of his property conducted by the Valuer-General, arguing that the valuation was incorrect and undervalued the property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff's challenge to the valuation process and the use of certain factors in the valuation was examined.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Valuer-General had correctly applied the relevant sales method in valuing the property and whether the factors considered in the valuation were appropriate and supported by evidence. The court was required to determine whether the onus of proof lay with the plaintiff to demonstrate that the valuation was incorrect, or whether the Valuer-General had to provide evidence to support the valuation. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate weight to be given to the factors causing disamenity in the valuation process.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the onus of proof lay with the plaintiff to demonstrate that the valuation was incorrect. The court found that the Valuer-General had applied the relevant sales method appropriately and that the factors considered in the valuation were supported by evidence. The court also determined that the factors causing disamenity were appropriately weighted and did not result in an undervaluation of the property. The plaintiff's challenge to the valuation process and the use of certain factors in the valuation was ultimately unsuccessful.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and upheld the valuation conducted by the Valuer-General. The court found that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of proof to demonstrate that the valuation was incorrect. The court further held that the factors causing disamenity were appropriately considered and did not result in an undervaluation of the property. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the valuation conducted by the Valuer-General was upheld.

Orders