Various appellants in Western Queensland v Department of Natural Resources and Water

[2007] QLC 15

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Various appellants in Western Queensland v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2007] QLC 0015 

PARTIES:

Various appellants in Western Queensland
(appellants)

v.

Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water
(respondent)

FILE NOS.:

AV2006/0017 to AV2007/0004

DIVISION:

Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against unimproved values in various Shires of Western Queensland – interlocutory hearing to determine selected cases.

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER

Mr JJ Trickett, President

ORDERS:

1.   The following test cases should be heard:

     Blackall Shire -    

     "Ravensbourne" – AV2006/0354, appellant IE Walker, property ID 4011803;

     Barcaldine Shire –

     "Tara" – AV2006/0280, appellant AB Walker, property ID 4010755; 

     Tambo Shire –

     "Minnie Downs" – AV2006/0207, appellant TV Fairfax, property ID 4012271;

     Aramac Shire –

     "Glenample" (part) – AV2006/0161, appellants TM and HM Elliott, property ID 40027499;

     Winton Shire –

     "Belmont" – AV2006/0183, appellant DA Elliott, property ID 4013125;

     Longreach Shire –

     "Spoilbank" – RV2006/0604, appellants EJ and JMC Sedgwick, property ID 4112442;  and

     "Ban Ban" – AV2006/0557, appellants MS and SJ Pratt, property ID 40238751.

2.   The appeals represented by Devine Agribusiness are adjourned.

CATCHWORDS:

Valuation – unimproved value – Western grazing lands – Numerous appellants variously represented.
Practice and procedure – unimproved value – Selection of test cases – Valuation of Land Act 1944.

APPEARANCES:

Mr P Sheridan of counsel instructed by Devine Agribusiness;
Mr A Boyd (agent), Mr P Whip (agent) for the appellants
Mr W Isdale of counsel instructed by Mr J Thomas of the Department of Natural Resources and Water, for the respondent

1. Approximately 465 appeals have been lodged by landowners against the unimproved values assessed for their properties in Western Queensland by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Water (the respondent), under the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944.  Approximately 240 appellants are represented by Mr A Boyd as agent, 98 represented by Mr P Whip as agent and 19 represented by Devine Agribusiness as agent.  The remaining 108 appellants are self represented.

2. A Directions Hearing was convened between those groups of appellants represented by agents on the one hand and the respondent on the other.  After hearing from Mr Boyd, Mr Whip and Mr P Sheridan, who represented Devine Agribusiness, and from Mr Isdale on behalf of the respondent, the Court issued the following Orders:

   1. The representative of each group of appellants who participated in the Directions Hearing is to confer with the representative of the respondent regarding appropriate test cases in each area.

   2.By close of business on Friday, 23 February 2007, the representative of each group of appellants and the representative of the respondent are to file and serve:

   (i)        a list of agreed test cases in each area;

   (ii)if no agreement has been reached, a list of the preferred test cases in each area, together with brief reasons why each proposed test case is preferred.

3. Representatives of the parties complied with those orders.

The appellants represented by Mr Boyd

1. The parties have agreed on test cases in two Shires –

   Blackall Shire

   AV2006/0354 "Ravensbourne", appellant IE Walker, property ID 4011803

   Barcaldine Shire

   AV2006/0280 "Tara", appellant AB Walker, property ID 4010755

2. The respondent suggested a further test case of the property known as "Mena Park" which was described as downs/gidyea country, submitting that as it was predominantly gidyea country it would be a very useful test case for that type of country.  However, Mr Boyd opposed the inclusion of "Mena Park" as not representative. 

3. After considering those submissions, I have come to the conclusion that "Mena Park" should not be a test case. 

   Winton Shire

4. The parties have agreed that appeal AV2006/0183 "Belmont", appellant DA Elliott, property ID 4013125, should be a test case.

5. However, Mr Boyd accepted the respondent's choice of "Belmont" as a test case, on the proviso that at least one of the properties "Corunna", "Lucella", or "Bonnie Downs" also be heard as a test case.

6. The reason for Mr Boyd's qualified acceptance was that those properties had been appeals to the Land Court previously and, according to Mr Boyd, the Court went to "great lengths" to set a relativity pattern at that time.  On the other hand, the respondent contended that one test case is quite adequate for the downs country and that those cases could be seen as tainted by previous decisions. 

7. I do not accept Mr Boyd's submissions.  The Land Court previously determined the unimproved values of those lands on the evidence before it at the time.  The Court will determine these appeals on the evidence presented to it and will not be bound by what was determined on a previous occasion with different evidence.

8. Therefore, "Belmont" will be heard as a test case for the downs country in Winton Shire.

   Tambo Shire

9. The respondent has proposed two test cases for Tambo Shire, "Westbourne", described as downs country and "Mt Macquarie", described as downs/gidyea country.  Mr Boyd objected to the inclusion of "Mt Macquarie" as a test case as he regarded it as not representative. 

10. Mr Boyd agreed to accept the respondent's choice of "Westbourne" as a test case, provided that the respondent accepted the property AV2006/0207 "Minnie Downs", appellant TV Fairfax, property ID 4012271, because that case was a basic sale used by both parties.  According to Mr Boyd, that sale has been inspected and analysed by both parties and "Minnie Downs", which is basically a downs property, could itself be heard as a test case.

11. I see merit in this proposal and find that if "Minnie Downs" is a sale to be relied on by both parties, it should be heard as the test case for Tambo Shire.

    Aramac Shire

12. The parties have agreed that the property known as "Glenample" should be the test case for Aramac Shire.  However, it appears that the property has been valued in two parts, AV2006/0161, appellants TM and HM Elliott, property ID 40027499, with an area of 16,406 ha, and AV2006/0162, appellant HM Elliott, property ID 4009835, area 4,393 ha.  Mr Boyd submitted that the test case should be the whole property, that is, the two parts together, as it is run as a whole and it would be wrong to hear only part of the property as a test case.  On the other hand, the respondent submitted that only AV2006/0161 should be the test case for the downs country in Aramac Shire.

13. I do not consider the reasons given by Mr Boyd to be persuasive.  The larger part of the property has been valued as a separate valuation and to hear the two together could involve complications in the apportionment of values.  Therefore, the larger parcel of "Glenample" AV2006/0161, will be heard as the test case for Aramac Shire.

Mr Whip's suggested cases

Longreach Shire

1. The appeals represented by Mr Whip are largely in the Shires of Longreach and Isisford, and the parties agreed that the property known as "Spoilbank", RV2006/0604, appellants EJ and JMC Sedgwick, property ID 4112442, should be the test case for Longreach Shire.

2. That property is described as comprising downs and gidyea country.

3. In addition, Mr Whip proposed that the property known as "Ban Ban", AV2006/0557, appellants MS and SJ Pratt, property ID 40238751, should also be a test case as it is one of the key sales in the southern and western area of the Shire.  It could be used for the western area of the Isisford Shire and the northern area of Barcoo Shire. 

4. I see the merits of this submission and if "Ban Ban" is a sale relied on by both parties, it should be a test case in Longreach Shire.

   Isisford Shire

5. The respondent submitted that the properties known as "Neleh Downs" and "Oma" be the test cases for the Shire.  However, that was opposed by Mr Whip, as he considers that each of those properties would not be useful to determine the issues between the parties.

6. Instead, he has proposed the property known as "Gundoo", as it has significant areas of harder gidyea country which has been pulled.

7. I note that "Spoilbank" has been described by both parties as comprising downs and scrub country, with Mr Whip saying that the property has significant areas of harder gidyea country which has been pulled.  In my view, although somewhat distant from "Gundoo", the test case of "Spoilbank" should resolve the issue of the development potential of the harder gidyea country.

Devine Agribusiness suggested cases

1. Written submissions have been received from Mr P Sheridan of counsel, who submitted that of the 19 appeals represented by Devine Agribusiness as agent, because of their geographical spread in the Shires of Murweh, Quilpie and Barcoo and the difference in land types, none of them are suitable for test cases.  The appellants seek an adjournment of the hearing of their appeals until the test cases in the other Shires are determined.  However, the respondent submitted that the property known as "Canegrass" comprising mulga country, should be a test case. 

2. During the Directions Hearing, I was informed that many of the Murweh appeals are located in the Augathella area and may be resolved following the determination of the test cases in the other Shires.

3. In the circumstances, I propose to agree to the application for adjournment by the Devine Agribusiness appellants until after the first round of test cases has been determined.

Orders:

1.   The following test cases should be heard:

Blackall Shire -         

"Ravensbourne" – AV2006/0354, appellant IE Walker, property ID 4011803;

Barcaldine Shire –

"Tara" – AV2006/0280, appellant AB Walker, property ID 4010755; 

Tambo Shire –

"Minnie Downs" – AV2006/0207, appellant TV Fairfax, property ID 4012271;

Aramac Shire –

"Glenample" (part) – AV2006/0161, appellants TM and HM Elliott, property ID 40027499;

Winton Shire –

"Belmont" – AV2006/0183, appellant DA Elliott, property ID 4013125;

Longreach Shire –

"Spoilbank" – RV2006/0604, appellants EJ and JMC Sedgwick, property ID 4112442;  and

"Ban Ban" – AV2006/0557, appellants MS and SJ Pratt, property ID 40238751.

2.   The appeals represented by Devine Agribusiness are adjourned.

JJ TRICKETT

PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT