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

In the matter of Watson and Ferreira v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, the lessees, Lesley K Watson and Pedro LDP Ferreira, appealed a review decision concerning the determination of the unimproved value of their leased land for conversion purposes under the Land Act 1994. The appeal was heard in the Land Court in Brisbane. The primary issue before the court was whether the valuer's assessment of the unimproved value of the land, based on a comparable sale, accurately reflected the true market value of the property. The court needed to decide if the review decision should be upheld or if further evidence was required to ensure a fair determination.

The court found that the evidence presented by the valuer was insufficient to make a conclusive determination of the unimproved value. The court noted discrepancies between the valuer's analysis and the lessees' claims about the improvements included in the comparable sale. Specifically, the valuer had not interviewed the purchasers of the comparable property and had not accounted for all improvements that the lessees argued were included in the sale price. The court held that a fair determination of the unimproved value required clarification of these discrepancies.

In light of the inadequate evidence, the court ordered further investigation by the valuer. The valuer was directed to personally interview the purchasers of the comparable property and to obtain, if possible, a copy of the contract of sale. The court also required the valuer to file an affidavit detailing the results of this inquiry and to submit a reviewed analysis if necessary. The lessees were given the opportunity to respond to this new evidence by filing their own affidavit. This approach aimed to ensure that the court had all necessary information to make a fair and accurate determination of the unimproved value of the leased land.

The court did not set aside the review decision outright but instead ordered further investigation and evidence to address the discrepancies in the valuer's analysis. This decision underscores the importance of thorough and accurate evidence in determining land values under the Land Act 1994.