Dillon v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 104

,, Re: Appeals against decisions of the Valuer-General, City of Rockhampton. LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 13th September, 1991. A V91-146, AV91-147, AV91-148 & AV91-228. B. T. Dillon v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Rockhampton) DECISION These appeals refer to the Valuer-General's valuations as at 31st March, 1990, of lands in Rockhampton as follows:- AV91-146 - Lots 1/15, 17 /28 on R.P. 607628 Parish of Murchison - $39,000 (owner's estimate $2,000) AV91-147 - Lot 2 on R.P. 602793 Parish of Rockhampton - $33,500 (owner's estimate $2,000) AV91-148 - Lot 3 on R.P. 603078, Lot 3 on RP 606551 & Lot 19 on Plan R2634 Parish of Rockhampton - $8,000 ( owners estimate nil) AV91-228 - Lot 14 on Plan LN705 Parish of Archer - $11,500 (owner's estimate $100) Mr Dillon attended the hearing and tendered twenty-eight exhibits of documents and correspondence relating to the lands or the grounds of his appeals. He relied on these exhibits and his verbal explanations of the exhibits as proof of his claims and grounds of appeal. I found none of Mr Dillon's evidence to be of any assistance in establishing the true unimproved value of any of the appeal properties. Mr Dillon has appeared before the Court previously and apparently taken the same stance with regard to evidence, in support of the grounds of his appeals. [1991] QLC 104 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 Indeed, one of his exhibits in this matter was a copy of the decision of my learned colleague Mr C.H. Carter, delivered on 7th December, 1990, where, in dismissing appeals against the previous valuation of these same lands, Mr Carter said: " What is required if owners are to discharge the onus resting upon them under the provisions of Section 16J(3) of the Valuation of Land Act, is some relevant evidence in support of the grounds of appeal. Examples could be submissions as to inappropriate relativity in unimproved values, reliance upon relevant sales evidence. etc." Mr Dillon is critical of the contents of that decision and takes the view that as there is no comparable sales evidence that in its.elf proves the Valuer-General's valuations to be wrong. Mr T.O. Hansen, registered valuer with the Department of Lands in Rockhampton appeared for the Valuer-General. He had not been the officer responsible for the valuations to which objections had been lodged, but had inspected the lands and researched the background to each valuation. It was his submission that regard to the owner had again not discharged the onus resting upon him in terms of the appeals AV91-146, AV91-147, and AV91-148. He chose not to give any evidence in these matters. I concur with his approach. Furthermore, Section 13(7) of the Valuation of Land Act of 1944 ( as amended) reads as follows: " Any and every valuation, or alteration of the valuation, of any land made, or purporting to be made, under this Act by the Valuer-General shall be deemed to be correct until proved otherwise upon objection or appeal or until altered or further altered pursuant to a provision of this Section. " Mr Hansen has shown diligence in considering the grounds of the objections and appeals in that he found need to investigate further the potential use of the land referred to in appeal AV91-228. He had established from discussions with neighbours that the land involved in this appeal had abnormal flooding problems. He then made specific enquiry at the Building Department of the Rockhampton City Council. While this land enjoyed as of right use under its "ResidentialA" zoning for construction of a dwelling, it formed part of a natural watercourse and a drain on adjoining land is inadequate to cope with the stormwater requirements causing the flash flooding. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 Although the site is still capable of use for the construction of a dwelling, the Council's requirements restrict considerably the potential of the site. Mr Hansen is of the opinion that the land would be most difficult to sell in the open market. He - tendered the valuation report prepared by the original valuer containing the details of two sales which had been considered in the valuation of $11,500. Mr Hansen's enquiries have indicated to him that the problems of both the subject land and an adjoining site owned by the Council (allotment 15 to the east) should be seen to be significantly greater than addressed by the current valuations. He is of the opinion that the value of the subject land may be as low as $5,000. Mr Dillon whilst appreciative of Mr Hansen's approach, sees this as an admission of the incorrectness of each of the Valuer-General's valuations and further more as being supportive of his claims. On the contrary Mr Hansen has provided the only cogent evidence before the Court which might be of assistance in determining the value of this land. There is no substantive evidence of a valuation nature to prove the other valuations to be wrong. My decision in these matters is as follows: Appeals AV91-146, AV91-147, AV91-148 are dismissed and the Valuer-General's determinations affirmed. Appeal AV91-228 is allowed, the Valuer-General's determination set aside and the unimproved value of the land being Lot 14 on LN705, Parish of Archer, is determined in the sum of $5,000 as at 31st March, 1990. (R.E. Wenck) Member of the Land Court. -- 3 of 3 --