Webster v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

In this matter, Mervyn Webster, the appellant, has appealed the annual valuation of his property located at 5 Stewart Terrace, Gympie, which was assessed at $26,500 by the Chief Executive of the Department of Natural Resources. Following an objection, the Chief Executive amended the valuation to $25,000, taking into account the impact of noise and the adjoining commercial activities. Webster now claims that the unimproved value should be reduced to $19,000. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the comparison of sales, relativity, access, and the impact of commercial development and the railway line on the subject land's value.

The court considered the evidence provided by both parties. Both agreed on the nature of the land and its location, but disagreed on the difficulties associated with safe access due to traffic flows along Stewart Terrace. The court also considered the proximity of the subject land to the railway line, which was decommissioned but still used sporadically for a tourist train. The court assessed the sales provided by the respondent, finding that the subject land's value should be between the values of the two provided sales. The court further examined the relativity argument put forth by the appellant, noting that while relativity is important, it should not be relied upon to the exclusion of sales evidence. The court concluded that the respondent's valuation of $25,000 was appropriate, but allowed for some doubt in the appellant's favour regarding the impacts of commercial development and restricted access.

The court found that the appellant had partly proved his case and set aside the unimproved value as determined by the Chief Executive. The unimproved value of Lot 1 on MPH 23917 was determined to be Twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000). This decision took into account the evidence provided by both parties, and the court's reasoning was based on the principles of valuation, comparison of sales, and relativity. The court exercised its discretion to resolve any doubts in the appellant's favour, ultimately reducing the unimproved value of the subject land to $24,000.