DZY B Pty Ltd ATF DZY B Unit Trust v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2026] QLC 10

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: DZY B Pty Ltd ATF DZY B Unit Trust v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2026] QLC 10 PARTIES: DZY B Pty Ltd as Trustee for DZY B Unit Trust (applicant) v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads (respondent) FILE NO: AQL447-25 PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 DELIVERED ON: 2 July 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: 22 May 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER: JR McNamara ORDERS: 1. Compensation for the taking of the subject Land is determined in the sum of Five Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($520,000). 2. Compensation for disturbance costs is determined in the sum of Twenty-Nine Thousand One Hundred and Ninety-Three Dollars and Nineteen Cents ($29,193.19). 3. Any submissions in relation to costs must be made on or before Thursday, 16 July 2026, and any reply must be made on or before 30 July 2026. 4. In the absence of any request to make oral submissions being contained in the written submissions, a decision in relation to costs will be given on the papers. -- 1 of 20 -- 2 CATCHWORDS: REAL PROPERTY – COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND – COMPENSATION – ASSESSMENT – where the respondent issued the applicant a notice of intention to resume for the purpose of transport – where the applicant applied to the Court to determine their compensation entitlement under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 – where the highest and best use of the subject Land is agreed as an improved single residential property – where the parties agreed that the primary methodology for valuing the subject Land is the direct comparison approach – where the valuers disagreed on the comparable sales – where the applicant’s valuer prefered constructing authority “settlements” in the same street as comparable sales – where recorded settlement amounts included disturbance costs – where the respondent analysed market sales in the general area – where the Court must determine costs attributable to disturbance – where the applicant purchased two properties following the resumption – where the Court must determine which property is the replacement land for the purposes of section 20(5)(b) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 – where there needs to be a causal connection between the taking and the purchase of replacement land – where the applicant claimed loss of rent – where the Court must determine compensation entitlement – where the Court must determine costs relating to disturbance as “reasonable” and a “direct and natural consequence” of the resumption in accordance with section 20(5) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 Acquisition of Land Act 1967 s 20 Duties Act 2001 Land Act 1994 Land Court Rules 2022 r 20, r 21 Land Tax Act 2010 Land Valuation Act 2010 s 6, s 74 Beard v The Director of Housing (1961) Tas S.R 141, considered Bignell v Chief Executive, Department of Lands [1996] QLAC 22, followed BWP Management Limited v Valuer-General (2019) 40 QLCR 232; [2019] QLAC 4, cited Dixon v City of Glenorchy (1968) 15 LGRA 407, considered Heavy Lex No 64 Pty Ltd & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Transport (2001) 22 QLCR 177, considered Johnstone v The Roads and Traffic Authority [2000] NSWLEC 111, considered Merivale Motel Investments Pty Limited v Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority [1988] 2 Qd R 562, followed -- 2 of 20 -- 3 Robke & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads; Robke & Anor v Mackay Sugar Ltd [2025] QLC 3, considered Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia (1907) 5 CLR 418, cited Woollams v The Minister (1957) 2 LGRA 338, considered APPEARANCES: P Huang (agent), for the applicant W Isdale of counsel (instructed by Clayton Utz), for the respondent Background [1] The Land Court has power to hear and determine claims for compensation on the taking of land by a constructing authority. [2] On 26 April 2024 (the acquisition date) the respondent Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) became the registered owner of 31 Leichardt Street, Logan Central (the subject Land), for which compensation is sought by the applicant, DZY B Pty Ltd as trustee for DZY B Unit Trust (DZY). [3] The application was brought by Diane Yuan Zhang, Director of DZY, who was represented at the hearing by her husband, Mr Peter Huang as agent. [4] The Court must decide the value of the subject Land as at the acquisition date in order to determine compensation pursuant to s 20 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (ALA). The Court must also decide the costs attributable to disturbance in relation to the taking of the Land. [5] The highest and best use of the subject Land was agreed to be as an improved single residential property.1 [6] It was also agreed that the primary valuation methodology to be adopted is the direct comparison approach.2 [7] The applicant’s valuer, Mr Matthews, assessed the value of the subject Land, as at 26 April 2024, at $615,000 plus disturbance costs.3 1 Exhibit 9, List of Matters Not in Dispute filed 21 May 2026, para 1(a). 2 Exhibit 9, List of Matters Not in Dispute filed 21 May 2026, para 1(b). 3 In a number of documents including the applicant’s 5 January 2026 Amended Statement of Claim, where it is stated that the applicant “is willing to accept $580,000 + disturbance costs”. -- 3 of 20 -- 4 [8] The respondent’s valuer, Mr Kamitsis, assessed the value of the subject Land taken, as at 26 April 2024, in a valuation report for DTMR initially at $495,0004, updated in the Joint Expert Report5 (JER) to $520,000, plus disturbance costs. [9] The respondent advanced compensation on 22 July 2024 in the sum of $546,615.00.6 The subject Land [10] In February 2024, the respondent’s valuer, Mr Kamitsis, inspected the residence on the subject Land and took photographs and measurements. He identified some termite damage. He commented on some “cosmetic” elements that would benefit from attention, as well as documenting internal cracks in walls, swollen cabinetry, and some wet and dry rot. The property backs onto a railway line. He considered proximity to the railway line a detraction on value. [11] The applicant’s valuer, Mr Matthews, was only able to make an external inspection of the property but had internal photographs. He said he was unaware of termite damage and observed that it is not unexpected that a landowner might not continue regular maintenance work on a property once a notice of intention to resume is served.7 In this case the notice was received on 30 November 2023, a few months before Mr Kamitsis’ inspection. [12] The main features of the subject Land are that: it is a 1970’s low set timber framed dwelling with average street appeal on a 589 m2 lot; it has vinyl clad external walls; a concrete tiled roof; plasterboard and fibre cement walls and ceilings; timber floor, linoleum, tiles and carpet; 3 bedrooms, one bathroom; and concrete stumps. The floor area is 82 m2 excluding a 15 m2 detached carport and an 8 m2 covered outdoor area. The subject Land is affected by “Transport noise corridor – State Rail” overlay. Allegations of misconduct [13] The applicant raised in the filed material and at the hearing, allegations of conflict of interest and misconduct by or on behalf of the respondent. 4 Exhibit 16, Affidavit of Majella Pollard filed 8 May 2026, attachment MMP-3: Valuation Report by Chris Kamitsis dated 14 May 2024, pages 42-81. 5 Exhibit 6, Valuer’s Joint Expert Report filed 23 March 2026. 6 Exhibit 4, Respondent’s State of Facts and Issues in Response filed 9 January 2026, para 7. 7 Transcript 1-68, lines 5 to 11. -- 4 of 20 -- 5 [14] The behaviour was described as a “manipulation of the acquisition process”8. The suggestion was that the respondent directs landholders to a particular legal service provider to act for them in the acquisition process. The legal service provider would, on the respondent’s behalf, influence the landholder to accept a “below market” settlement. The longer-term agenda, it was alleged, is the manipulation of DTMR sale prices (and their use as comparable sales) to below their proper place in the market. Mr Huang said that sale prices on Pricefinder or RP DATA are “conservative or … negatively impacted because of the misconduct”. [15] I asked the expert valuers immediately after they were sworn to give evidence at the hearing if they could confirm the content of the JER paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 which state that they had had regard to the Land Court Rules 2022, the Land Court Practice Direction 6 of 2020, and that they had read and agreed to be bound by the Valuer’s Code of Conduct in the preparation of the report and in the giving of evidence to the Court – which they did. [16] The primary duty of an expert is to assist the Court. The duty overrides any obligation an expert may have to any party, any person who engaged the expert to give evidence, or any person paying their fee or expense. An expert must not accept (and a person must not give) instructions to give any particular evidence or opinion about the evidence.9 [17] Having read the allegations in the filed material; having heard Mr Huang at the hearing say more about the allegations; and noting the answers given to some questions put to the respondent’s valuer, I am satisfied that there was nothing to substantiate the allegations. Further, there is nothing to explain how the alleged misconduct would have affected the Joint Expert Process (and the application of the direct comparison method) undertaken in preparation for hearing. I also note that it was the applicant who wished to include DTMR “settlements” as comparable sales, not the respondent. 8 Transcript 1-9, line 38. 9 Land Court of Queensland, Practice Direction No 6 of 2020: Expert evidence in the Land Court, 6 April 2022; Land Court Rules 2022 (Qld) r 20, r 21. -- 5 of 20 -- 6 Principles [18] It is worth setting out the principles the Land Appeal Court has said are involved with considering comparable sales. These were condensed in: BWP Management Limited v Valuer-General10 at paragraphs [19]-[25] as follows (footnotes omitted): [19] Valuers draw upon comparable sales in the artificial exercise of assuming a hypothetical sale of the subject land. The hypothetical sale of the subject land must meet the statutory test in s 18 of the LVA, of a bona fide sale. [20] The purpose in looking at potentially relevant sales is to establish the pattern of prices and alterations in the levels of prices over specified periods. The process of comparison involves considering the attributes of the land and the nature of the transaction. [21] Whether a sale is truly comparable is a question of fact, not law, and necessarily involves questions of judgment. Considering a sale’s comparability is not a binary exercise. It is an oversimplification to say a sale is either comparable or not. There will be gradations of comparability: from identical to irrelevant. Sales that approach the irrelevant end will offer so little assistance that the valuer and the court should disregard them. [22] What is required is a weighing up of the effect of similarities and differences, which is rarely a precise exercise. Some adjustment is always necessary. There is no hard and fast rule that clearly defines a sale as comparable or not; it is a matter of degree. Where to draw the line is a matter for the expert valuer to determine [23] The differences between a particular sale and the land being valued may be so great that a court holds the sale is in no sense comparable. The nature of the adjustments required for a comparative analysis may mean the sale can provide no evidence of or basis upon which to assess the value of the subject land. [24] Further, the circumstances and considerations that induced the parties in that sale may take it out of the ordinary run of transactions that constitute the relevant market. If so, the valuers may exclude the sale because it was affected by special circumstances. [25] What emerges from the authorities is that a comparable sales analysis is an evaluative process that does not lend itself to a valuer, or a court, summarily accepting or disregarding a sale without considering the particular features of the land sold and the circumstances of the sale. The approach taken by the applicant’s valuer [19] Mr Matthews formed his opinion based on 2 property sales in the same street as the Land, that is, 21 and 25 Leichardt Street, Logan Central. Mr Huang described the comparability of these “sales” to the subject Land as “apple-to-apple” sales11, as opposed to (the sales in the JER sales summary) which are “apple-to-pear” sales12. 10 (2019) 40 QLCR 232 [19]-[25]; [2019] QLAC 4. 11 Transcript 1-9, lines 12 to 13. 12 Transcript 1-39, line 24. -- 6 of 20 -- 7 [20] Those two properties had also been purchased by the respondent for the Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail project.13 Number 21 sold for $542,200 about 20 months prior to the acquisition of the subject Land, number 25 sold for $619,000 about 2 months prior to the acquisition date. Mr Matthews then applied a 12.5% market movement uplift to the sale price of 21 Leichardt Street “in line with the acquisition price of 25 Leichardt Street” to estimate an acquisition date valuation of $610,000. He applied a 5% market movement uplift to 25 Leichardt Street for the period of February to April 2024 to estimate an acquisition date valuation of $619,000 for the subject Land. [21] Mr Matthews also looked to the annual valuation issued by the Valuer-General relative to a nearby property that had “recently sold” (31 Mayes Avenue, Logan Central – a sale not considered by the valuer engaged by the respondent). He then compared that valuation with the issued valuation for the subject Land on a rate per square metre. In his view, this confirmed that the subject Land is valued higher than that other sale (31 Mayes Avenue) on a rate per square metre, despite the close proximity of the subject Land to a railway line. Extrapolated, it is his opinion, that this analysis supported the valuation of the subject Land to be between $600,000 and $620,000. He settled on $615,000 as the “fair and reasonable acquisition value”. The approach taken by the respondent’s valuer [22] Mr Kamitsis followed a more familiar direct comparison or comparable sales approach. He analysed nine residential sales in the Logan Central and Woodridge area over a period commencing 7 months prior to the acquistion up to the about the time of the taking. He produced a report including maps, photographs (from real estate websites), key dates, sale price/s, and written comparisons of land and location, dwelling size, characteristics and quality, and an overall comparison. Only one of the comparable sales included in his sales summary is in Leichardt Street. Comparability [23] The 2 sales that the applicant relies on in Leichardt Street (numbers 21 and 25) were DTMR “settlements”. 13 Exhibit 15, Affidavit of Donna Brunello filed 8 May 2026. -- 7 of 20 -- 8 [24] In Merivale Motel Investments Pty Limited v Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority (Merivale Motel)14, the court said: “Settlements have, for valuation purposes, been treated as having inherent but qualified weight when admitted as evidence of value. The origin for this view may be in the absence from settlements of the willing purchaser and vendor, not unwilling but not anxious, which since Spencer’s case15 (citation omitted), have been regarded as the necessary parties to a relevant sale.” The Court later said16: There is no principle of law which requires the complete rejection of sales to a resuming authority, but such sales should be used with considerable caution. [25] In the often-cited Woollams v The Minister (Woollams)17, the settlements in that matter were used “for the limited purpose of putting a check on certain of the opinions expressed by the (resuming authority’s) valuer”. [26] The respondent’s valuer, Mr Kamitsis, in the JER said that when relying on sales where the constructing authority is the purchaser, care should be taken to ensure that the information relied on is correct and properly understood. In relation to 21 and 25 Leichardt Street, he said18: “…[the] purchases recorded on RP DATA (and other property data resellers) record the total purchase price inclusive of disturbance items (including but not limited to stamp duty, removal costs, legal and valuation fees)”. [27] This was confirmed in the affidavit of DTMR Property Acquisitions and Disposal Director Donna Brunello19. In the case of 21 Leichardt Street the sale price was $542,200, of which $32,200 was attributed to disturbance items. In the case of 25 Leichardt Street, the sale price was $619,000, of which $39,000 was attributed to disturbance items. [28] The applicant’s valuer, Mr Matthews, was asked by the applicant’s representative Mr Huang at the hearing if he still insisted that the proper valuation for the Land should be $615,000, noting the evidence concerning the amounts attributed to disturbance items in the purchase price of 21 and 25 Leichardt Street. Mr Matthews firmly 14 [1988] 2 Qd R 562. 15 Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia (1907) 5 CLR 418. 16 Merivale Motel Investments Pty Limited v Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority [1988] 2 Qd R 562, citing Woollams v The Minister (1957) 2 LGRA 338. 17 (1957) 2 LGRA 338. 18 Exhibit 6, Valuer’s Joint Expert Report filed 23 March 2026, para 12.4. 19 Exhibit 15, Affidavit of Donna Brunello filed 8 May 2026. -- 8 of 20 -- 9 maintained his view that $615,000 was the proper valuation, but ultimately said that $600,000 would be “taking the lower end of it”. [29] Considerations against the use of settlements by a constructing authority include: “the fact that they are comparable lands does not make them comparable sales” (Beard v The Director of Housing20); The onus lies on the party seeking to have the sales evidence admitted to show 1) that there is no other evidence of value in the locality, 2) that the acquiring authority bought the properties in question in the open market, or 3) that the owner offered the property to the acquiring authority at a figure about which there was no query, at a time when there was no thought of compulsory acquisition (Dixon v City of Glenorchy21); [30] In this case, there is a lack of evidence concerning the course of negotiations leading to the settlement of 21 and 25 Leichardt Street. [31] Mr Kamitsis’ evidence was that the sales, 21 and 25 Leichardt Street, were not relevant to his direct comparison analysis. His reasons included the fact those “sales” were “settlements”; they included better quality and more substantial residences; and that he had considered nine “open market” and “more comparable” (sales) in respect of the style and construction of the house. [32] It was put to Mr Kamitsis by Mr Huang on numerous occasions that he (Mr Kamitsis) was in error, and had admitted error, in not taking these sales into account. [33] On each occasion Mr Kamitsis corrected Mr Huang to say that he had not, and was not, in error in not taking those sales into account. He said that he had made an error in relation to the date of sale, only. That is consistent with my understanding of the evidence. Relativity [34] The applicant’s valuer uses, as a check method against his analysis of 21 and 25 Leichardt Street, the relativity of another sale (31 Mayes Avenue, Logan Central) by extrapolating the 2022 annual valuation assessed by the Valuer-General. Based on annual valuation data on a rate per square metre, Mr Matthews determined that land in Leichardt Street was more valuable than land in Mayes Avenue. 20 (1961) Tas S.R 141 per Crisp J cited in Merivale Motel Investments Pty Limited v Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority [1988] 2 Qd R 562. 21 (1968) 15 LGRA 407 cited in Merivale Motel Investments Pty Limited v Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority [1988] 2 Qd R 562. -- 9 of 20 -- 10 [35] The statutory purpose of valuations is described in the Land Valuation Act 201022 to value for any liability under the Land Tax Act 2010, the making and levying of rates, and the calculation of rent under the Land Act 1994. The Valuer-General has a general duty to make annual valuations, although the Valuer-General need not make an annual valuation in certain circumstances.23 Annual valuations are undertaken by mass appraisal, that is by analysing market trends, sales data, and benchmark properties, rather than conducting individual physical inspections. [36] The Land Appeal Court in Bignell v Chief Executive, Department of Lands24, said: “The question before this Court is ‘the correct valuation of the subject land, not the correct valuation of the area’”. The point being that neighbouring valuations are not comparable sales unless (they are) shown to be comparable. The JER [37] The valuers’ JER was filed 30 March 2026. In the Summary of Findings, it is said that the valuers agree on the factual property particulars and description, the resumption details, the valuation methodology, zoning and highest and best use. They also agree that the market was rising in the months leading up to the acquisition. [38] They disagree about the comparability of sales where the purchaser is a constructing authority, and any relativity to be drawn from the mass appraisal valuation. [39] They disagree as to the market value of the subject Land as at 26 April 2024. The applicant says $615,000, the respondent says $520,000. [40] In evidence, Mr Matthews said that he didn’t consider the 9 sales analysed by Mr Kamitsis to be comparable. He provided no analysis himself of the 9 sales in the JER. He said that it was unnecessary to “go and look at a hundred other houses … when I’ve got the comparison that I need right next door”. That is, the sales at 21 and 25 Leichardt Street provided evidence of value, and the relativity of 31 Mayes Avenue (and the rising market) supported his conclusion. [41] There was no detail in the JER about the nature and condition of the dwellings, the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, or the floor area, at 21 and 25 Leichardt Street. 22 Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld) s 6. 23 Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld) s 74. 24 [1996] QLAC 22. -- 10 of 20 -- 11 [42] In evidence at the hearing it was established that 25 Leichardt Street, was a two-storey residence, or a typical high set house with carparking underneath25, and 21 Leichardt Street a single storey residence. Mr Matthews considered that both had “slightly” better quality of improvements in comparison to the subject. He disagreed that 25 Leichardt Street was substantially better. Mr Matthews did not consider that sales to a statutory authority would inspire less confidence as a reference for market value. [43] Mr Kamitsis said in evidence that 25 Leichardt Street was a rendered brick home with a floor area “close to 150 m2”26 whereas “the floor area of the subject property was 86 square metres …”27. Mr Kamitsis later clarified in evidence that the subject property area is 82 m2. Mr Kamitsis accepted that the “sales”, 25 Leichardt Street and the subject Land would be “comparable by date” (settlement being 2 months prior to the acquisition date), but 25 Leichardt “was a vastly superior property”28. It was of brick construction and had 2 kitchens. He later said that because he does not rely on this property in his valuation assessment, there is no reference to it in the JER, and he has not taken the time to review any information regarding the property. He confirmed that he considers market transactions more comparable. The comparable sales [44] The sales land area ranged between 539 m2 and 617 m2. All were market transactions and inspected externally by Mr Kamitsis, and listing information and photographs were obtained through online searches. Six were in Logan Central and three in Woodridge. The sales dates were from 7 months prior to the acquisition date up to 2 days prior to the acquisition date. The sale prices ranged from $472,000 to $563,000. The sales in the following summary table are listed in ascending order of price: No. Address Sale Date Sale Price Site Area 1. 11 Sylvania Street, Logan Central 06/10/2023 $ 472,000 607sqm 2. 36 Leichardt Street, Logan Central 26/09/2023 $ 480,000 572sqm 3. 269 Kingston Road, Logan Central 02/11/2023 $ 495,000 607sqm 4. 145 Smith Road, Woodridge 06/04/2024 $ 516,000 539sqm 25 Transcript 1-43, lines 23 to 24. 26 Transcript 1-42, lines 2 to 3. 27 Transcript 1-42, line 12. 28 Transcript 1-42, lines 33 to 46; Transcript 1-43, line 3. -- 11 of 20 -- 12 5. 16 Sylvania Street, Logan Central 19/12/2023 $ 520,000 617sqm 6. 9 Nyanza Street, Woodridge 24/04/2024 $ 532,000 607sqm 7. 6 Chestnut Street, Logan Central 02/11/2023 $ 535,000 610sqm 8. 18 Blackton Street, Logan Central 21/11/2023 $ 550,000 607sqm 9. 26 Jean Street, Woodridge 16/04/2024 $563,000 597sqm [45] By reference to the table, Mr Kamitsis’ valuation of the subject Land at $520,000 was around the midpoint of the properties. He considered Sales 4 and 5 to be the best guide. [46] I have read the JER and considered all the supporting evidence including photographs. I summarise Mr Kamitsis’ evidence below. I have taken into account the evidence given at the hearing by both Mr Kamitsis and Mr Matthews regarding the information and their respective conclusions. I have also taken into account the questions put to both Mr Kamitsis and Mr Matthews, their responses and their demeanour. [47] The only questions asked by Mr Huang for the applicant concerning the information and analysis of sales by Mr Kamitsis contained in the JER concerned Sale 8, 18 Blackton Street, Logan Central, and Sale 9, 26 Jean Street, Woodridge. Sales 1, 2, 3, and 7 – sales 6 to 7 months prior to the acquisition date [48] Sale 1 transacted 7 months prior to the acquisition date, and Sales 3 and 7 both transacted 6 months prior to the acquisition date. Sale 1 has a slightly larger land area in a quiet residential street (no railway line); a dwelling in slightly superior condition; and was sold for $472,000 in a rising market. Sale 3 was not affected by rail noise but was affected by road noise. It sold for $495,000 and consisted of a similar 3-bedroom, 1-bathroom configuration; was in slightly superior condition; and, was conveniently located to local amenities. Sale 7 which sold for $535,000 is a 1980’s 3-bedroom, 1- bathroom residence on a larger lot with a detached carport in a “far superior internal and external condition and presentation”. It is constrained by a local roads noise overlay. [49] Sale 2 at 36 Leichardt Street (the only Leichardt Street property considered) sold for $480,000 about 7 months prior to acquisition. It is on the opposite side of the road -- 12 of 20 -- 13 from the subject Land and does not back on to the railway line. Mr Kamitsis considered that although smaller in land area it was in a slightly superior position; 4- bedroom; presented in a slightly superior condition; but had no car accommodation. Allowing for market movement, Mr Kamitsis said it was reasonable to consider the subject Land to be worth more than $480,000. [50] Mr Kamitsis was of the view that Sale 1 was inferior to the subject; Sale 3 superior; and Sale 7 significantly superior to the subject Land. Taking account of market movement, he said that these sales supported a conclusion that the subject Land would be valued at more than $472,000 and $495,000 respectively, but less than $535,000. Sales 5 and 8 – sales 4 to 5 months prior to acquisition date [51] Sales 5 (sold for $520,000) and 8 (sold for $550,000) both occurred around 4 to 5 months before the acquisition date. Sale 5 is a 1960’s weatherboard dwelling and single carport on a larger block with no adverse overlays. It has a superior condition and presentation, and superior ancillary improvements, including an in-ground swimming pool. [52] Sale 8 is a 1980’s lowset brick dwelling with 3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom and a multipurpose room, and no adverse overlays. [53] Mr Kamitsis considered Sale 5 to be slightly superior to conclude that the subject Land to be valued at no more than $520,000; and Sale 8 to be significantly superior to indicate the subject Land valuation to be less than $550,000. [54] Mr Huang asked about the market movement impact on the $550,000 price of Sale 8. He put to Mr Kamitsis that if there had been an average 7.5% market movement increase in the period from the sale date (21 November 2023) to the acquisition date (26 April 2024), should Sale 8 be analysed to approximately $590,000? [55] In response Mr Kamitsis said that “when (I) hold the sale at Blackton Street in my mind when I’m doing the mental exercise, I’m also mindful of the other sale you just mentioned (Sale 9) which was just a few days prior to the relevant date at $563,000.”29 He went on to say that it was his opinion that Sales 8 and 9 were superior to the subject property and indicate a value less than those sales. He said that he understood Mr 29 Transcript 1-64, lines 11 to 14. -- 13 of 20 -- 14 Huang’s reasoning but taking account of more recent sales (Sale 9) at $563,000, “it doesn’t lead me to conclude that any reasonable adjustment of Sale 8 would be anything like $590,000. So, I don’t agree with the adjustment that you are putting to me.”30 Sales 4, 6 and 9 – sales closest to the acquisition date [56] Sale 4 while not affected by rail noise it is subject to a “local roads’ overlay and has inferior vehicular access. It is on a slightly smaller land parcel with a similar 3- bedroom, 1-bathroom configuration. It has “average presentation” with some repairs and maintenance required. Improvements include two detached dongas with a timber alfresco area. It sold 20 days prior to the acquisition date for $516,000. Mr Kamitsis considered it overall similar and supports a value in the order of $516,000. [57] Sale 6 which sold for $532,000 2 days prior to the acquisition date comprises a larger land area; is approximately 80 metres from the railway line; consists of a similar 3- bedroom, 1-bathroom residence; has a superior kitchen and superior presentation and improvements. On balance it was considered by Mr Kamitsis to be superior to the subject Land, and on that basis the subject Land would be valued less than $532,000. [58] The highest sale price of those considered, close to the acquisition date, was $563,000 for Sale 9 which is a 1980’s low-set brick and hardiplank residence, with a detached double carport with no adverse overlays. It is on a slightly larger land area; but was a more substantial and superior residential property, both internally and externally. On balance, Mr Kamitsis considered the subject Land to valued less than $563,000. Conclusions – value of the subject Land [59] In my view the consideration and analysis undertaken by Mr Kamitsis is compelling. His approach is logical and consistent with the well understood principles applicable to the direct comparison method of valuation. The analysis clearly took into account the implications of market movement in the period up to the date of acquisition; the impact of the various overlays affecting the subject Land and comparable properties; the quality, condition, size and presentation of the subject Land and the various properties – which led to an expert opinion as to the value of the subject Land at the acquisition date. 30 Transcript 1-65, lines 32-34. -- 14 of 20 -- 15 [60] The only significant challenge to the approach and opinion of the respondent’s valuer was as regards market movement when considering Sales 8 and 9. I accept Mr Kamitsis’ opinion that he considered the impact of market movement on the comparability of Sale 8, and he balanced that against Sale 9, a more substantial and superior residential property which sold closer (closest) to the acquisition date, to conclude that an adjustment of the order Mr Huang suggested should not be applied. [61] As noted in these reasons, “settlements”, even by the same acquiring authority, should be used with caution. The evidence was that the applicant’s valuer at the time of producing the JER was unaware that the settlement amounts included disturbance costs. They were not open market sales. There was a lack of sufficient evidence to determine their comparability. There was a reluctance, after it became apparent, to make any adjustment for the fact that the sale price included disturbance items. The expertise of the valuer is to determine comparability and to make adjustments based on analysis. This can, often in commercial sales, involve the making of inquiries about how a particular sale price was agreed through searches and inquiries. It should involve a detailed description, a gathering of all relevant property information, and where possible an inspection of the “settlement” properties to properly compare them with the subject Land. That was not the case here. [62] The role of the court is to evaluate the evidence, not perform the role of a third valuer. Based on the evidence presented to the Court in this case I accept the opinion of Mr Kamitsis that the correct valuation for the subject Land at the date of acquisition to be $520,000. Disturbance items [63] The approach to the assessment of compensation to be awarded for costs attributable to disturbance under s 20(5) of the ALA, and the authorities relevant to that approach, was considered by Member Loos in Robke & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads; Robke & Anor v Mackay Sugar Ltd31 where his Honour observed at [20] (footnotes omitted): Both section 20(5) of the ALA and section 68(5) of the SIA32 involve an assessment of reasonableness, when considering whether costs are attributable to disturbance. The test of what is reasonable has been discussed by the Land Appeal Court in Heavey Lex, Nevis Pty Ltd v Chief 31 [2025] QLC 3. 32 The reference to the Sugar industry Act 1999 (Qld) is of no relevance to this matter. -- 15 of 20 -- 16 Executive, Department of Main Roads and Inglis & Ors v State of Queensland (No. 2); State of Queensland v Inglis & Ors. The principles in making such as assessment are: (a) losses must be of a nature and within the scope of those which a reasonable person in the position of the claimant would have done or caused to be done; (b) the amount or quantum of the losses must be reasonable in the circumstances; (c) the losses must be actually incurred and quantifiable; and, (d) they must not be losses which a reasonable person would have avoided. [64] In Heavey Lex No 64 Pty Ltd & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Transport33, the Land Appeal Court observed at [74]: In our view, the authorities support the proposition that outgoings in respect of the preparation of a compensation claim to be recoverable must be reasonable. What is reasonable needs to be determined … by application of an objective standard or standards. In our view a claimant can recover for work of a nature and within the scope of that which a reasonable person in the position of the claimant would have done or caused to be done. The fees and charges for the work must also be reasonable. [65] At the hearing, the respondent handed up a document which became Exhibit 19: Respondent’s Assessment of Disturbance Items. [66] The respondent does not quibble with the payment of reasonable costs related to the purchase of a replacement property by the applicant as provided for in s 20(5). Nor does it dispute the amounts presented by the applicant in that regard when they first made a claim in respect of the purchase of a property at One Mile, Ipswich. However, the subsequent decision by the applicant to instead claim costs associated with the later purchase of a property in Rockbank, Victoria, with a different schedule of fees and charges, is disputed. [67] The only disturbance item not determined by reference to the replacement property (that were not otherwise dismissed prior to the hearing) is described as “Rent loss for existing lease from the date of the acquisition on 26-4-2024 to the date of the early advance payment on 25-7-2024, total 91 days: $5,200”. The respondent denies this is compensable. Replacement land [68] The compensation claim lodged34 with the respondent on 5 March 2025 included the Duties Act 2001 Reassessment Notice for the One Mile, Ipswich, purchase. The issue 33 (2001) 22 QLCR 177. 34 Exhibit 16, Affidavit of Majella Mollard filed 8 May 2026, attachment MMP-5: Compensation Claim dated 5 March 2025, pages 82-84. -- 16 of 20 -- 17 date is 25 July 2024; the Date of Transaction is 25 June 2024; the Dutiable Value $430,000.00; and the assessed liability $13,475.00. [69] The originating application was filed 24 November 2025. An amended statement of claim was filed 5 January 2026. At that time, the applicant’s claim for disturbance items included $13,475 stamp duty for the purchase of a replacement property at One Mile on 25 July 2024. [70] In the applicant’s Statement of Facts and Issues filed 15 January 2026, the applicant no longer claimed stamp duty on the One Mile purchase, instead claiming stamp duty for the purchase of a replacement property in Rockbank, Victoria on 3 November 2025.35 [71] Mr Huang was sworn and gave evidence at the hearing. He said that his wife bought 2 properties, and he understood that she was entitled to use either as a replacement property, it didn’t have to be the first property. He said that when the respondent “chose to proceed for the court proceeding” we chose to use the second property as the replacement property. However, the change of “replacement property” only occurred when the applicant’s Statement of Facts and Issues was filed. [72] The applicant purchased the first property at One Mile, Ipswich, Queensland, immediately after the subject Land was taken. The second property was purchased 16 months later in Rockbank, Victoria. [73] Stamp duty (and some other related costs) on the purchase of the Victorian property is significantly greater than stamp duty on the purchase of the Queensland property. [74] In the assessment of compensation, costs attributable to disturbance are set out in s 20(5) Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (ALA). Relevantly s 20(5)(b) provides: (b) the following costs relating to the purchase of land by a claimant to replace the land taken– (i) stamp duty reasonably incurred or that might reasonably be incurred by the claimant, but not more than the amount of stamp duty that would be incurred for the purchase of land of equivalent value to the land taken; (ii) financial costs reasonably incurred or that might reasonably be incurred by the claimant in relation to the discharge of a mortgage and the execution of a new mortgage, but not more than the amount that would be incurred if the new mortgage secured the repayment of the balance owing in relation to the discharged mortgage; (iii) legal costs reasonably incurred by the claimant; (iv) other financial costs, other than any taxation liability, reasonably incurred by the claimant. 35 Exhibit 10, List of Issues of Fact and Law in Dispute, para 6. -- 17 of 20 -- 18 [75] The language of s 20(5)(b) indicates that there need be a causal connection between the taking of the subject Land (the acquisition) and the purchase of the replacement land. [76] That causal connection appears strong in respect of the purchase of the property at One Mile. [77] There is also a requirement of reasonableness inherent in relation to costs claimed relating to the purchase of replacement land. [78] While time and distance might not alone be obstacles to accepting a causal connection between subject Land and a subsequent purchase, for the following reasons it is my view that in this case, the replacement land for the purposes of s 20(5)(b) is 64 Chubb Street, One Mile: The $546,615.00 advance money was in the hands of the applicant just a few days prior to settlement of the One Mile property; the taking of the subject Land had happened or was imminent at the time of that purchase; the applicant considered the One Mile property an appropriate “replacement property” when the originating application was filed and when the amended statement of claim was filed; the respondent engaged with the applicant on the basis that the One Mile property was the replacement property; and the nature of the One Mile replacement property had “like for like” characteristics, that is an investment residential property in South East Queensland outside the metropolitan area and at a not greatly dissimilar price point; and the element of “costs incurred” reasonableness would seem satisfied in respect of the One Mile purchase. Loss of Rent [79] The claim is for lost rent from the date of acquisition on 26 April 2024 to the date of the advance payment on 25 July 2024, a total of 91 days. The amount sought is $5,200. [80] The respondent relies on the New South Wales case Johnstone v The Roads and Traffic Authority36 to submit that rent loss is not compensable. In that case a claim for lost rent was resisted on the basis that compensation is awarded as at the date of acquisition and interest paid thereafter. The court concluded that the rental loss was not a loss attributable to disturbance since it was not a financial cost reasonably 36 [2000] NSWLEC 111 [60]-[61]. -- 18 of 20 -- 19 incurred, rather it is a loss for which compensation is reflected in the before and after valuation. [81] The statutory language “costs reasonably incurred” appears throughout s 20(5). It is fair to conclude that the claim made for loss of rent is not a loss attributable to disturbance rather a loss which is reflected in the compensation paid, and any interest awarded up until compensation is awarded. Other disturbance costs [82] The other disturbance costs are set out in the table below. They represent amounts agreed as between the parties in respect of the purchase of the property at One Mile. None of the costs claimed by the applicant in respect of the purchase of the property at Rockbank, Victoria are allowed. Compensation [83] I determine compensation for the taking of the subject Land as follows: Item claimed Amount ($) Compensation payable for the taking of $520,000.00 the subject Land (s20(5) ALA) Disturbance [84] I determine compensation for disturbance items as follows: Item claimed Amount ($) Stamp duty for the purchase $13,475.00 of the replacement property, 64 Chubb Street, One Mile Transfer fee $1,552.96 Conveyancing fee $2,963.25 CBA discharge fee $531.98 Allowance for bldg. and pest inspection $770.00 Professional fees (Solicitor’s fees) $7,700.00 Valuer’s fee $2,200.00 Total $29,193.19 -- 19 of 20 -- 20 Orders 1. Compensation for the taking of the subject Land is determined in the sum of Five Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($520,000). 2. Compensation for disturbance costs is determined in the sum of Twenty- Nine Thousand One Hundred and Ninety-Three Dollars and Nineteen Cents ($29,193.19). 3. Any submissions in relation to costs must be made on or before Thursday, 16 July 2026, and any reply must be made on or before 30 July 2026. 4. In the absence of any request to make oral submissions being contained in the written submissions, a decision in relation to costs will be given on the papers. -- 20 of 20 --