Tseng v Valuer-General

Case [2018] QLC 42

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Tseng v Valuer-General [2018] QLC 42
PARTIES: En-Tzu (Pheobe) Tseng
(appellant)
v
Valuer-General
(respondent)
FILE NOs: LVA826-16
LVA827-16
DIVISION: General division
PROCEEDING: Appeals against valuation objection decisions under s 155 of the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON: 9 November 2018
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: 8 June 2017 (Court) and 12 December 2017 (on the papers)
HEARD AT: Brisbane
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: GJ Smith
ORDERS:

Appeal LVA827-16 is allowed.1.     

The unimproved value of Lot 19 on SP 125370 and Lot 22 on SP 285410, County of Stanley, Parish of Yeerongpilly, as at 1 October 2014 is determined at Six Hundred and Twenty Thousand dollars ($620,000).2.     

Appeal LVA826-16 is allowed.3.     

The unimproved value of Lot 19 on SP 125370 and Lot 22 on SP 285410, County of Stanley, Parish of Yeerongpilly, as at 1 October 2015 is determined at Six Hundred and Twenty Thousand dollars ($620,000).4.     
CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – METHOD OF ASSESSING – SALE OF SUBJECT – whether sale to appellant was bona fide – prudent purchaser – limited enquiries – motivation of purchaser – proposed use not feasible – purchase not for highest and best use – rural zoning – clearing permit not granted – sale not accepted as evidence of value – Spencer Test – LandValuation Act s 18

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – METHOD OF ASSESSING – VEGETATION PROTECTION ORDER – order imposed after sale – native vegetation on land at valuation date – highest and best use – vegetation clearing not permitted – mango orchard not feasible – rural home site – impact on unimproved value – no evidentiary basis to correct unimproved value.

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND ­ METHOD OF ASSESSING ­ unimproved value – availability of water, sewerage and stormwater to subject land – assumed unimproved state – no evidence of connection costs – use of comparable sale to correctly make valuation – no basis to correct unimproved value – LandValuation Act s 170.

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – METHOD OF ASSESSING – unimproved value – drainage easement on subject land – valuation date – impact of easement use – no basis demonstrated to correct unimproved value.

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – METHOD OF ASSESSING – unimproved value—comparability – comparison of sales – whether similarly affected – impact of arterial road – impact of flooding –
location and surrounding amenity – adjustment to sales – analysed unimproved value – issued value – speaking report and reasoning – lack of comparability – all sales superior to subject  – reduction to issued value necessary to correctly make valuation. –

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – METHOD OF ASSESSING – unimproved value – impact of flooding – comparison of sales – basis of comparison – similar flooding issues – extent of flooding on subject – sales not comparable – inadequate allowance on subject – reduction necessary to correctly make valuation.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE…

Continue reading Tseng v Valuer-General

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Tseng v Valuer-General [2018] QLC 42
Case
[2018] QLC 42
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tseng v Valuer-General, the parties were involved in a dispute concerning the valuation of certain land for property tax purposes. The case was heard in the Queensland Land Valuation Court. The central issue was whether the sale of the subject land to the appellant should be considered in determining its unimproved value, and if not, what the correct valuation should be.

The court had to decide if the sale to the appellant was bona fide and if the appellant acted as a prudent purchaser. It was argued that the appellant's motivation and the feasibility of their proposed use were relevant factors. The court also had to consider the impact of zoning and permits on the land's value. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the unimproved value of the land could be adjusted based on factors such as the availability of utilities, the presence of a vegetation protection order, a drainage easement, and the impact of flooding.

The court found that the sale to the appellant was not bona fide as the proposed use was not feasible due to zoning restrictions and the lack of a clearing permit. Therefore, the sale could not be used to assess the land's value. The court also found that there was no evidentiary basis to adjust the unimproved value for factors such as the availability of utilities, the vegetation protection order, the drainage easement, or the impact of flooding. The court concluded that the subject land's unimproved value should be determined based on comparable sales, adjusted for relevant differences. After comparing the sales and making necessary adjustments, the court determined the unimproved value of the land.

The court allowed the appeals and set the unimproved value of the land at Six Hundred and Twenty Thousand dollars ($620,000) for both the 2014 and 2015 valuation years. The court also made orders regarding the appeals and the determination of the land's unimproved value.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal LVA827-16 is allowed.1.

The unimproved value of Lot 19 on SP 125370 and Lot 22 on SP 285410, County of Stanley, Parish of Yeerongpilly, as at 1 October 2014 is determined at Six Hundred and Twenty Thousand dollars ($620,000).2.

Appeal LVA826-16 is allowed.3.

The unimproved value of Lot 19 on SP 125370 and Lot 22 on SP 285410, County of Stanley, Parish of Yeerongpilly, as at 1 October 2015 is determined at Six Hundred and Twenty Thousand dollars ($620,000).4.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.