Watson & Ferreira v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

[2001] QLC 29

[2001] QLC 29

 

LAND COURT BRISBANE

20 APRIL 2001

Re:     LA99-1539 -

An Appeal against a Review Decision -

Determination of Unimproved Value for Conversion Purposes - Special Lease:  09/36983 -

Lot 237 on Plan DA421, Parish of Garioch

Lessees:Lesley K Watson and Pedro LDP Ferreira ORDERS FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE

This matter was called on for hearing in Mareeba on 3 April 2001.

Evidence was given under oath by Ms Watson, one of the appellants, and Mr IS Quirk-Anderson, registered valuer employed by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

One of Mr Quirk-Anderson's two basic sales, and clearly the most comparable, is that of land described as Lot 22 on Registered Plan 808487, containing 3.64 ha, situated Peninsula Development Road, Mt Molloy, said to have been sold by the vendor Howson to the purchasers Lynch on 13 January 1995, the sale price said to have been $45,000.

Mr  Quirk-Anderson  analysed  the  sale  to  show  an  unimproved  value  of

$40,000, the improvements said to have comprised "Clearing and Bore" with added value of $5,000. Mr Quirk-Anderson's evidence was that despite several attempts he had not been able to interview the purchasers Lynch.  The Court had evidence before it that the officer responsible for the review decision, on being informed by the applicants for review that the sale price had included a "kit home" contacted the purchasers who "confirmed that the only improvements that existed on the site at the time of purchase was a shallow bore". They also informed him that "$9,000 was required to connect to main power".

Mr Quirk-Anderson relied on that information in confirmation of his analysis of the sale.

Ms Watson's evidence was that the sale property had been fully fenced and the sale price included a tractor, with a dozer blade and implements, and the "materials" for "a 10 x 20m aluminium shed, suitable for a dwelling" which was subsequently constructed.  Ms Watson said Mrs Lynch had told her it had cost $8,000 to connect to

2

the power.  She said she had spoken to Mrs Lynch again as late as the morning of the hearing to confirm her understanding of the details relevant to the sale price.

Section 429(1) of the Land Act 1994 provides as follows: "In deciding an appeal, the Court -

(a)has the same powers as the decision makers; and

(b)is not bound by the rules of evidence; and

(c)must comply with natural justice;

…"

In my opinion compliance with natural justice would not be served in this matter if my decision was made in the absence of further evidence regarding the details of the sale to Lynch.

Rather than set aside the review decision and return the issue to the Minister with appropriate directions in terms of s.429(3)(c) of the Land Act 1994, as was my indicated initial verbal response to the state of the evidence, I have decided that, after hearing extensive evidence regarding the disabilities of the property, I should make the following orders, using Rule 22(3) of the Land Court Rules 2000:

1.Mr Quirk-Anderson, within 42 days of the date of these orders, further investigates the sale to Lynch, personally interviews the purchaser/s, and obtains, if available, a copy of the relevant contract of sale.

2.Mr Quirk-Anderson files in the Court and serves on the lessee by hand delivery or registered post, an affidavit setting out the results of his further inquiry, copy of the contract of sale if available and, if found to be necessary, a reviewed analysis of the sale.

3.The lessees/applicants, within 14 days of delivery of a copy of Mr Quirk-Anderson's affidavit, file in the Court and serve on the chief executive an affidavit in response to the further evidence.

RE WENCK MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT