Davies & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 283

1 ·-:- ~ t - ·~ -:.·,-, .- ' . .1 •·• t4: t. 'i ....... « ... --·-...,- ,a- __,._----.,,....... Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - City of Brisbane. AV90-55. c.w. and f.M. Davies v. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing In Chambers at Brisbane) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 27th March, 1991 Mr and Mrs Davies are the owners of a residential allotment of 607 square metres at 293 The Esplanade, Wynnum. Under Valuation Roll No 2269, the Valuer-General, in the annual revaluation of the lands in the City of Brisbane as at 31st March, 1989 (effective as,: from 30th June, 1990), valued this land at $90,000 and reduced this to $85,000 on an objection. Mr and Mrs Davies have exercised their right of appeal to the Court against this valuation and contend to a value of $78,750. Evidence was given by Mr Davies and the appeal is confined to one issue. In this revaluation, the subject land was valued at $90,000 and the adjoining property was valued at $160,000. This adjoining property has double the area of the subject land. The subject has a 10 metre frontage and that property a 20 metre frontage. They both suffer the same disabilities. The objections were allowed in each case. The neighbouring property was reduced to $140,000. This represents a reduction of 12.5% while the valuation of the subject land was reduced by approximately 5.6%. He says that the question of the differing sizes of the allotments was taken into account at the time of objection and to maintain relativity, the original valuation of the subject land of $90,000 should also be reduced by 12.5%. [1991] QLC 283 -- 1 of 3 -- I ◄ -~ ll 2 Evidence for the Valuer-General was given by Valuation Manager, Mr G.F. Glancy, that the valuations were reconsidered at objection and allowance made for the disabilities highlighted by the owners. He makes reference to a sale of a 405 square metre parcel of land on The .Esplanade which sold in February 1989, just prior to the relevant date, for $105,000. fn the revaluation he has applied a value of $90,000 to that allotment and says that the sale fully supports the value contended for on the subject land, particularly as the subject is 50% larger than that sale allotment but it has the same narrow width. He is of opinion that the disabilities common to both allotments have a somewhat greater impact on a larger allotment than on a smaller allotment but basically in valuing the adjoining property he has had regard to a sale of a large allotment in Melville Terrace. In hindsight Mr Glancy believes that the valuation of the neighbouring allotment might be somewhat low but he is satisfied that the sales evidence supports the valuation placed on the subject land. It is desirable that valuations made for the purposes of the Valuation of Land Act of comparable land should bear a proper relativity one to the other if the valuations are soundly based but the paramount duty cast upon a valuer by the Act is to arrive at an unimproved value of the relevant parcel of land at a given date. The Act defines unimproved value of land in relation to improved land as being 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, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of the Act, the improvements did not exist. A prudent owner of the subject land, if offering it for sale at the relevant date in its unimproved state, would seek information in the marketplace as to the price he would expect to obtain for the subject land. I am satisfied that the sale of the 405 square metre parcel on The Esplanade which occurred in February 1989 would convince such a -- 2 of 3 -- 3 prudent vendor that he would not be prudent in accepting the sum of $78,750 (the valuation contended for) as the appropriate sale price for the subject land. The sale supports the conclusion reached by Mr Glancy as to an appropriate value and the appeal must fail. While it does appear that there may be some lack of uniformity between the adjoining allotments, the Valuer-General should not sacrifice correctness to ensure uniform relativity but, if possible, obtain proper relativity by correcting inaccuracies. In the result the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer- General is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --