Bona & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 218

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - City of Brisbane - Bulimba. AV91-783. T.A. and E. Bona V. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 18th December, 1991 Mr and Mrs Bona are the owners of a 1460 square metre residential allotment at 18 Karumba Street, Carina Heights, on which is constructed a dwelling in which they reside. In the revaluation of the lands· as at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General valued the parcel at $172,500 and they have exercised their right of appeal against this valuation and contend in the notice of appeal to a value of $110,000. Subsequently the Valuer-General reduced the valuation to $165,000 and in terms of Section 21 A of the Valuation of Land Act, this is the figure deemed to be the valuation appealed against. Following the revaluation of this land in the Annual Valuations at 31st March, 1989, Mr and Mrs Bona appealed against the Valuer-General's valuation of $135,000. In a decision handed down on 10th April, 1991, my learned colleague, Mr R.E. Wenck, allowed the appeal and determined the valuation at $125,000. In that decision he discusses the various matters which are again rai.sed before me as to disabilities associated with this land and I do not propose to repeat them here. ! Before me evidence was given by Mr Bona in support of the grounds of appeaL In l . , . his evidence he discussed the sales used by the Valuer-General as a basis for the ! [1991] QLC 218 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 valuation and gave reasons why he considered that they were not a suitable basis having regard to the special disabilities attaching to their land. He made particular reference to a sale shown by the Valuer-General as being in Gallipoli Road of Lot 6 on GTP 948, parish of Bulimba, containing 1286 square metres. This sold in September 1990 for $194,500. Mr Horne placed this in his valuation as information supporting his valuation although it is an after date sale. Mr Horne stated the sale was of land with a concrete drive as the only improvement. Mr Bona stated that he had inspected this property and that prior to its purchase by a Mr Brittain there was a substantial dwelling on it. I reserved my decision in the matter and subsequent to that, a letter was received in the Registry on 12th November, 1991, in confirmation of the evidence given that there was indeed a dwelling house included in that sale and that the information supplied by the Valuer-General was inaccurate. On 10th December, 1991, at the same time as I re-opened the hearing in respect of the appeal by P. and J Copson (AV91-903), evidence was given by Mr and Mrs Bona confirming the statement in their letter. I am satisfied that this sale was an improved sale and is no basis to support the valuation contended for by the Valuer-General for this land. There is only one other sale in Carina Heights used by the Valuer-General in the valuation but it is superior and does not have many of the disabilities which have been highlighted by Mr and Mrs Bona. It is a matter of regret that a sale has been included in the sched!,Jle of sales i used by Mr Horne which has not been fully investigated and it leaves me with doubts which, in the circumstances, I propose to resolve in favoμr of the l! appellants. -- 2 of 3 -- - - ·- ·- ··- ·-~ . •-· · -- __.. ._. ·- . ·-· -i" - I 3 Mr and Mrs Bona contend to a value of $110,000 but I really have no cogent evidence from them to support this valuation which, on the face of it, would suggest that there has been a fall in the market between 31st March, 1989 and 31st March, 1990. I have the valuation as at 31st March, 1989, determined by the Court - $125,000 and, in terms of the Act, this valuation is deemed to be correct. There is no evidence to support a conclusion that within the twelve months period there has been a drop in the market place for sales of unimproved parcels of land and in the ordinary course of events, I would increase the 1989 valuation marginally as I have done in the case of Mr and Mrs Copson who did contend for a valuation higher than the 1989 valuation. A new issue which arose in this matter was that there were further restrictions to views to the east because of a recent building and in all the circumstances I will adopt the 1989 valuation to make allowance for this. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Valuer-General is ser aside and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined at $125,000. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --