Westerman v Valuer-General - [2013] QLC 65

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Westerman v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 65
PARTIES:Sybrand Johannes Westerman
(appellant)
v.
Valuer-General

(respondent)

FILE NO:LVA362-12
DIVISION:General Division
PROCEEDING:  Appeal against annual valuation under the Land Valuation Act 2010
DELIVERED ON:                  11 December 2013
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARD ON:  7 November 2013
HEARD AT:Brisbane
MEMBER:WA Isdale
ORDERS:1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2.    The valuation appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: Land Valuation Act 2010, ss 163, 169
Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, s 574A and 574C
Valuation of Land Act 1944, s 13(7)
Sales evidence of value ― comparable sales ― relativity ― expert evidence
Arkinstall v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 30
R and MM Barnwell v The Valuer-General (1989) 13 QLCR 13
Body Corporate for “147-153 Mary Street Gympie” CTS v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 51
BrisbaneCity Council v The Valuer-General (1978) 140 CLR 41, 5 QLCR 283
Burnett v Department of Natural Resources and Water [2010] QLC 57
Dr Yvonne Collen Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 60
Enright Hendy and Partners Investments Pty Ltd as Trustee v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 38
WM and TJ Fischer v The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44
Gibson v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (V92-64 unreported Land Appeal Court 9 June 1995)
Hans and Else Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327
Lawson v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 27
JL & I Qualischefski v Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 167
Steinback v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 8
Thomson v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2007] QLC 92
NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378
BG and AK Wilson v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (1994-1995) 15 QLCR 63

APPEARANCES: Mr SJ Westerman, the appellant
Mr P Prasad, Senior Lawyer for the respondent

Background

The appellant is the owner of land described as Lot 171 on SP 157454 County of Stanley, Parish of Redcliffe. It has an area of 794 m² and is a corner allotment in a residential estate known as Petrie on Pine. It is some 23 km radially from the Brisbane GPO.
Pursuant to the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the Act) the Valuer-General (respondent) routinely valued the land on 1 October 2011. The site valuation of $270,000 was subsequently reduced to $260,000 in accordance with s 163 of the Act. The respondent’s letter dated 16 October 2013, which became exhibit 5, recorded this. The reduced figure of $260,000 became the figure appealed against.
The appellant, dissatisfied with the original valuation and the reduced figure, contended that the site value of the land at the date of valuation should be $230,000. The grounds of the appeal were that the valuation did not reflect the physical characteristics of the land or the constraints on its use. Additionally, it was not in line with the valuations that had been made of comparable lands.
The appellant presented his case and also gave evidence which included written material.

The case for the appellant

The notice of appeal became exhibit 1 and in his evidence the appellant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Westerman v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Westerman v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 65
Case: [2013] QLC 65
Decision Date: 11 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Westerman v Valuer-General, the appellant, Sybrand Johannes Westerman, appealed against the valuation of his land, Lot 171 on SP 157454 County of Stanley, Parish of Redcliffe, which was valued by the Valuer-General at $260,000. The appellant contended that the valuation did not reflect the physical characteristics of the land or the constraints on its use and was not in line with the valuations of comparable lands. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the valuation of the subject land was correct.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the evidence of the appellant and the expert evidence of the respondent's valuer, Elizabeth Kearins. The court found that the respondent's valuer had adopted the method of direct comparison with sales of other land and had compared the subject land with six sales of vacant land for single residential use. The court considered the evidence of the sales and found that the valuer had explained how her valuation opinion was arrived at and used the method which courts have decided will provide the best test of value.

The court found that the respondent's own procedures for the investigation of sales did not appear to have been fully complied with, as the valuer did not interview parties to the sales used to ensure that they were suitable sales to be relied upon as bona fide sales. However, the court was not able to prefer the method urged on behalf of the appellant, as its shortcomings had been highlighted by this court and the Land Appeal Court in previous cases.

For the reasons given, the appeal was dismissed, and the valuation appealed against was confirmed.

Orders