Land Court of Queensland

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Steinback v Valuer-General [2012] QLC 8 PARTIES: Charmaine Elizabeth Steinback and Darryl George Steinback (appellants) v. Valuer-General (respondent) FILE NO: VLA182-10 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Appeal against annual valuation under Valuation of Land Act 1944 DELIVERED ON: 24 February 2012 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Kingaroy MEMBER: Mr PA Smith ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Valuation – Factors in valuation – Farming -Presumption in favour of correctness of valuation – Valuation of Land Act 1944 APPEARANCES: Mr D Steinback on behalf of the appellants Mr P Prasad, Principal Legal Officer for the respondent Background: [1] This is an appeal by the appellants against a valuation by the respondent, pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the VLA) which valued the appellants’ property situated at Ulampa Creek Road, Nukku, Blackbutt in the sum of $192,500 as at 1 October 2009. The appellants contended for a valuation of $65,000 by their notice of appeal and for a valuation of $79,000 during the course of the hearing. [2] The land has a total area of 107.242 hectares comprised in two lots, being Lots 58 and 105 on Plan CSH222. It is located approximately 5 km north west of Blackbutt. Access is via earth and gravel roads. For most of the year the access is good but problems can be encountered in adverse weather conditions. While electricity and telephone are available to the property, there are no town water supplies, garbage collection or mail delivery. [3] Blackbutt is a relatively small rural township providing basic services including churches, hotel, service stations, primary school and limited retail shopping and offices. The subject property is mostly cleared and in a predominately improved state, a significant feature being a silviculture plantation. The subject is also used for grazing cattle. Four percent of the land is impacted by vegetation management issues under the Vegetation Management Act 1999. The land is zoned rural [4] The appellants were represented by Mr Steinback, who gave evidence at the hearing. Mr Steinback has no legal or valuation qualifications. The respondent was represented by Mr P Prasad, a principal senior legal officer employed by the respondent, and relied on evidence of a registered valuer, Mr P Mariner. Relevant legislative provisions [5] Pursuant to s.13 of the VLA, the respondent is required to determine the unimproved value of the land. Relevantly, s.3(1) of the VLA1 says as follows: “3.(1) For the purposes of this Act – ‘unimproved value’ of land means – (a) in relation to unimproved land – the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require; and (b) in relation to improved land – the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements did not exist.” [6] I note that the subject land in this matter is improved. Accordingly, put simply, the task is to find the market value of the land on the assumption that none of the improvements are on the subject land. An assessment is then undertaken as to the highest and best use of that land. [7] As the President said in Fairfax v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2005] QLC 0011 at paragraphs 11 and 12: “[11] The principles for determination of the 'market value' of land were established by the High Court in Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418. In that case, the High Court found that the value of land is determined by the price that a willing but not over-anxious buyer would pay to a willing but not over-anxious seller, both of whom are aware of all the circumstances which might affect the value of the land, either advantageously or prejudicially, including its situation, character, quality, proximity to conveniences or inconveniences, its surrounding facilities, the then present demand for land and the likelihood of a rise or fall in the value of the property. (See Griffith CJ at 432 and Isaacs J at 441). 1 As in force on 1 October 2009. 2 [12] It has been well established that the unimproved value of land is ascertained by reference to prices that have been paid for similar parcels of land. In Waterhouse v The Valuer-General (1927) 8 LGR (NSW) 137 at 139, Pike J said that: ‘Land in my opinion differs in no way from any other commodity. It certainly is more difficult to ascertain the market value of it but – as with other commodities – the best way to ascertain the market value is by finding what lands comparable to the subject land were bringing in the market on the relevant date – and that is evidenced by sales.’ ” I respectfully agree with these observations. Presumption of correctness of valuation [8] I now turn to s.33 of the VLA, which states as follows: “33. Status of valuation Any and every valuation, or alteration of the valuation, of any land made, or purporting to be made, under this Act by the chief executive shall be deemed to be correct until proved otherwise upon objection or appeal or until altered or further altered.” [9] This section was considered by the High Court in the case of Brisbane City Council v The Valuer-General for the State of Queensland 1977-78 140 CLR 41 where Justice Gibbs (as he then was) made the following observation at page 56: “In my opinion once it is shown that in making the valuation the Valuer-General acted upon a wrong principle, or made a serious error of fact, the presumption created by s. 13(7) is rebutted.” It should be noted that s.33 of the VLA is in essentially the same terms as what was then s.13(7) of the Act. The issues in the Appeal [10] The appellants’ grounds of appeal are as follows:2 “* THE LAND IS USED FOR FORESTRY * THE LAND IS USED FOR BEEF CATTLE NO. OF TREES 30,000 TYPE OF TREES SPOTTED GUM AGE OF TREES PLANTED FEB-APRIL 1997 BEEF CATTLE STUD REGISTERED AS NUKKU PARK CHARBRAY STUD 15 YRS OF STUD * THERE ARE NO SIMILAR PROPERTIES TO LOTS 105 & 58 * THERE ARE NO SALE PRICES TO SIMILAR PROPERTIES. LOTS 105 & 58 AS PER OBJECTED REASONS PLUS ALL OTHER REASONS OUTLINED IN ORIGINAL * PROPERTY IS UNHABITATED I.E. NO ONE LIVES THERE.” 2 See Exhibit 1. 3 [11] During the course of the hearing, the main contentions of the appellants became clear. In essence, the appellants contend that a dramatic increase in their valuation has caused their rates to increase by 300% without any change occurring on their property. Additionally, the appellants contend that the valuation increases on their property are out of kilter with valuation increases on other properties in the area. Finally, the appellants contend that the correct way of setting the valuation for their property is by applying a consumer price index increase to their previous valuation. [12] Mr Steinback gave evidence in support of his propositions. Mr Steinback’s evidence presented in an open, honest, forthright way. He certainly strongly believes everything that he said. While I accept him as a truthful witness, when it comes to evidence regarding the appropriate unimproved value of the subject land in accordance with the VLA, the evidence of Mr Mariner, the respondent’s valuer, must be preferred. [13] Mr Mariner is a registered valuer of considerable experience. He conceded that there are difficulties in assessing the appropriate valuation due to a limited number of sales. However, Mr Mariner did provide the Court with relevant sales as specified in his report and addendum.3 The respondent in his submissions has usefully summarised Mr Mariner’s sales evidence as follows: “ Sales Area (ha) Date of Sale Price Analysed Applied Comparison Vegetation Sale Unimproved Unimproved Management Value Value Act 1999 (%) Sale 1 - Blackbutt 502 23/04/2008 $850,000 $450,000 $380,000 Superior to 49% of Forest Road, South subject with property East Nanango ($1,693/ha) $896/ha) $757/ha regard to size. impacted by (approx 10.32km Inferior with Vegetation north of subject) regard to Management country type, Act 1999 access and location to facilities. Comparable with regard to available services. Overall Inferior/ha Sale 2 - Bowman 673.2 24/07/2006 $1,300,000 $640,000 $510,000 Superior to Property not Road, Taromeo subject with impacted by Approx 1.76km ($1,931/ha) ($950/ha) $757/ha) regard to size, Vegetation east of subject available Management services, Act 1999 location to facilities and access. Comparable with regard to country type. 3 See Exhibits. 10 and 11. 4 Sale 3 - Ricketts 862.305 24/07/2007 $1,550,000 $834,000 $690,000 Superior to 12% of Road, Johnston subject with property (approx 47.78 km ($1,798/ha) ($967/ha) ($800/ha) regard to size. impacted by north of subject) Inferior with Vegetation regard to Management country type, Act 1999 access and location to facilities. Comparable with regard to available services. Overall inferior/ha Sale 4 - Cnr Walsh 124.896 31/03/2009 $175,000 $144,000 $115,000 Superior to the 44% of and Manumber subject with property Road, Nanango ($1,401/ha) ($1,153/ha) ($921/ha) regard to size impacted by (approx 31km north and access.

Load more