Beckingham v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 220

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General - Brisbane City Council. AV91-263. Ralph Beckingham v. The Valuer-General DECISION LAND COURT, BRISBANE 31st July, 1991 This appeal is against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of Lots 217 and 218 on RP 13382, parish of Bulimba, in the sum of $46,000 for the purposes of the Annual Valuation of the Area as at 31st March, 1990. The valuation became effective on 30th June, 1991. The appellant is contending for a valuation of $35,750 on grounds which in substance are that the increase in the valuation over the previous valuation (fixed in 1989) should follow the Consumer Price Index (C.P.I.) which for the purpose could be put at 10%. Mr Becking ham appeared on his own behalf. He has on a prior revaluation objected to the valuation on grounds that the increase in the valuation should be relative to the increase in the C.P.I. and that the valuation was out of relativity with values applied to other lots in the area. His objection was allowed and he assumed that the Valuer-General took note of his submissions regarding the application of the C.P.I. Thus, the background appears to the submission before the Court. In his evidence he details the former and current values applied to seven lots in the locality of the subject land which is situated at 54 Hawkwood Street, Mount Gr2.~ct East. The subject land has an area of 809 square metres. Three of the lots listed in the evidence of Mr Beckingham have the same area. Three others have areas of 455 square metres and one has an area of 911 [1991] QLC 220 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 square metres. For the purposes of the current Annual Valuation, the lots were valued in sums which reflected an increase of around 40%. Evidence was given on behalf of the Valuer-General by Mr AC. Horne, registered valuer in the employ of the Department of Lands. His evidence included details of three sales of lots which sold unimproved except for clearing and fencing. These sales came to his notice when preparing for the appeal. An application of this market evidence would in his opinion support a higher valuation on the subject land than that determined. He agreed that in the relevant period there were no sales of unimproved land in the immediate neighbourhood of the subject land and was of the opinion that the relativity in the area was correct. The test in ascertaining value for the purposes of the Act is laid down in s.12(1) (b); that is, that the sum required to be ascertained is the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require. This test has nothing to do with the C.P.I. In Toohey's Limited v. The Valuer-General (1925) AC. 439, the Privy Council at p. 443 said: What the Act requires is really quite simple. Here is a plot of land; assume there is nothing on it in the way of improvement. What would it fetch in the market? • The question is best answered by sales of comparable land in the same neighbourhood. If none exist, any prudent vendor and purchaser would give consideration to sales in adjoining neighbourhoods making allowances as they considered reasonable for any factors differentiating the areas and the lots. Needless to say, the opinion of a valuer who is trained in these matters must have greater weight than that of a layman. The only evidence before the Court of market transactions in unimproved land came from Mr Horne. These transactions amply support the -- 2 of 3 -- 3 determined value and it not being proved on the balance of probabilities that the value applied to the subject land is out of relativity with values applied to the lots raised by Mr Beckingham, I must dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. D. M. White Member of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --