Cannon Valley Views Pty Ltd v Valuer-General, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2013] QCAT 426

CITATION: Cannon Valley Views Pty Ltd v Valuer-General, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2013] QCAT 426 PARTIES: Cannon Valley Views Pty Ltd (Applicant) v Valuer-General, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR317-12 MATTER TYPE: General Administrative Review matters HEARING DATE: 5 August 2013 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Bevan Hughes, Member DELIVERED ON: 1 August 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. The Valuer-General’s decision not to consider the objections lodged out of time is affirmed. CATCHWORDS: Objections to valuation – late objections – satisfactory reason Land Valuation Act 2010 s 111 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. REASONS FOR DECISION What is this Application about? [1] Cannon Valley Views Property Pty Ltd wants the Tribunal to review the Valuer-General’s decision not to accept Cannon’s late objections to the valuations for four properties at 461 Sugarloaf Road, Sugarloaf. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 [2] Cannon contends that the Valuer-General should have exercised his discretion and allowed the objections to be considered out of time. Cannon claims that the valuation for the four properties should be $250,000 instead of $275,000. [3] Cannon and the Valuer-General agree that Cannon’s objections were lodged out of time.1 They also agree that the objections were lodged late because Cannon was waiting until a contract of sale for one of the properties became unconditional.2 What does the law say? [4] A property owner can only object to a notice of valuation within 60 days.3 This is subject to section 111 of the Land Valuation Act 2010.4 [5] Section 111(3) of the Land Valuation Act 2010 provides: The valuer-general must accept the objection if satisfied it was not made within the usual objection period because of – (a) the owner’s mental or physical incapacity; or (b) an extreme circumstance; or (c) an extraordinary emergency; or (d) another reason the valuer-general considers satisfactory in the circumstances. What does Cannon say? [6] Cannon contends that the contract of sale becoming unconditional after the objection period is a reason that should be considered by the valuer- general to be “satisfactory in the circumstances”. This is because there is “no point lodging the objection until the land was sold unconditionally”.5 [7] Cannon then escalated its concern to an “an abuse of power and the wrong exercise of the discretion to have the actual independent sales price of a lot, not being able to be considered”.6 How does the law apply to Cannon’s circumstances? [8] The application is misconceived. Cannon’s concerns constitute an objection to the valuation itself, rather than reasons why the objection should be considered outside the prescribed period of 60 days. 1 Statement of Agreed Facts filed 2 April 2013, paragraphs 7 and 8. 2 Statement of Agreed Facts filed 2 April 2013, paragraph 8. 3 Land Valuation Act 2010 s 109(1)(a). 4 Ibid s 109(2). 5 Letter Cannon Valley Views Pty Ltd to Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management dated 30 July 2012. 6 Letter Cannon Valley Views Pty Ltd to Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management dated 9 August 2012. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [9] Despite the ostensible gravity of Cannon’s concerns, it failed to provide any submissions at all to support its claims and thereby failed to comply with a Tribunal Order dated 16 May 2013. [10] Doing the best I can, I have noted that Cannon did tell the Valuer-General: Lot 16… has been on the market for two and a half years. Because of the crisis in property, floods and cyclones, we have not been able to sell that property at the listed price, which was $269k. It took two and a half years to get $250k. The best price we were offered in late 2011 was $198k.7 [11] No reasons have been provided for not lodging the objection within the period. This is because the basis for the objection did not transpire until after the objection period - no contract of sale was signed during the objection period. [12] The Valuer-General issued the Notice of Valuation on 28 March 2012.The contract of sale was signed on 9 June 2012. It is therefore chronologically impossible for the Valuer-General to have issued the valuation on the basis of a contract of sale that did not exist at the time of valuation. [13] Even if I accept Cannon’s argument that the “best judge of the value of the land is when it is independently sold”, then at its zenith, that can only be when the land was sold – by contract dated 9 June 2012. That is not relevant to the preceding valuation of 28 March 2012. It may be relevant to subsequent valuations. What is the appropriate Order? [14] The appropriate Order is that the Valuer-General’s decision not to consider Cannon’s objections lodged out of time is affirmed. 7 Letter Cannon Valley Views Pty Ltd to Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management dated 9 August 2012. -- 3 of 3 --