Copson & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 219

,,. I Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - City of Brisbane. AV91-903. P.G. and J.M. Copson V. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 18th December, 1991 This is an appeal against the Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of an 878 square metre parcel of land situated at 17 Karumba Street, Carina Heights, on which is erected a dwelling occupied by the appellants. In the revaluation of the lands in the City of Brisbane as at 31st March, 1990, the Valuer-General has valued this parcel at $130,000. Mr and Mrs Copson in their notice of appeal contend to a value of $100,000. From the evidence given by Mr Copson, it is established that the subject land was valued by the Valuer-General as at 31st March, 1989, at $105,000. This valuation was the subject of an appeal to the Land Court and in a decision handed down on 10th April, 1991, the appeal was allowed and the valuation of the subject land as at that date was determined in the sum of $95,000. Evidence was given by both Mr and Mrs Copson in support of the grounds of appeal. They discussed the sales which have been used by the Valuer- General as a basis of valuation including a sale of Lot 6 on GTP 948, parish of Bulimba, containing an area of 1286 square metres which sold in September, 1990, for $194,500. This is included in the valuation of Mr Horne as support information [1991] QLC 219 -- 1 of 2 -- 2 only. Mr Horne says that this was for all practical purposes a sale of an unimproved block of land in a group title except for a driveway. Mr and Mrs Copson contended that this sale was of both house and land. Following the conclusion of the evidence and the reserving of a decision, they wrote to the Court requesting they be allowed to adduce further evidence to establish that they are correct in the claim that a home was upon this land at the time of sale. They duly appeared before the Court and I accept their evidence. I find the sale is no basis to support the value contended for. It is indeed a matter of regret that the sale has been included in the schedule of sales which have been used as a basis for this valuation. It is important that only sales which have been fully investigated are advanced as evidence of value. The disabilities attaching to this piece of land are well described in the decision of my learned colleague, Mr R.E. Wenck, in his decision of the 10th April, 1991, and there is no need for me to repeat them on this occasion. Mr and Mrs Copson fairly acknowledge that there has been a slight increase in value in their land in that period from March 1989 and March 1990 and I believe that justice will be done if I determine the valuation at the figure for which they contend of $100,000. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the valuation of the Valuer-General is set aside and the unimproved value of the subject land is determined at One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 2 of 2 --