Benson & Anor v The Valuer-General [1991] QLC 297

Re: Appeal against Annual Valuation of the Valuer-General - Shire of Caboolture. AV90-65. J.H. Benson and H.L. Hudlow V. The Valuer-General DECISION (Hearing at Caboolture) LAND COURT, BRISBANE 20th February, 1991 In the annual revaluation of the lands in the Shire of Caboolture as at 31st March, 1989, the Valuer-General, under Valuation Roll No 24479/90000, has valued a 26.24 hectare parcel of land owned by the abovenamed at $77,000. The appellants have exercised the right of appeal to the Land Court against this valuation and while three grounds of appeal have been listed, only one ground has been argued before this Court, that ground being "the valuation is contrary to law". The question of the valuation of this parcel of land for a valuation as at the 31st March, 1988, was considered by the Land Court and thence on appeal to the Land Appeal Court. Much of the evidence now given to me by the appellant, Mr Benson, was canvassed in the Land Appeal Court and is recorded in the judgment of that Court when the appeal was dismissed on 27th August, 1990. He stresses that this land was purchased by him to be an agricultural parcel of land. It has been cleared of weeds and he continues to work to improve the pasture. He says that under the present arrangement he receives $2,400 a year from his neighbour, Mr Dawes, for the right to graze upon the land. Mr Dawes is responsible for some fencing repairs and other work. The agreement can be terminated on a month's notice. Some evidence was given by Mr Thomason [1991] QLC 297 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 relating to values directed to production of dairy farms. No evidence was advanced to support the valuation contended for in the notice of appeal on the estimate of the unimproved value of the land which reads "2 valuations - Site 15000 - Grazing 26000". Valuation evidence was given by Valuation Manager, Mr D.R. Lucas, to support the valuation of $77,000 placed on the land as a rural homesite. This valuation has not been challenged but Mr Lucas was cross-examined on who was responsible for the productiqn of the grass upon the land used for grazing. Mr Thomason addressed the Court on the evidence in this appeal and also in the appeal by H.J. and C.C. Harney (AV90-66). He acknowledges that I am bound by the decision of the Land Appeal Court in the Benson and Hudlow appeal (AV89-119) but there is a matter which was not considered by the Land Appeal Court and was not argued before that Court. He says that s. 11 (1 )(vii) of the Valuation of Land Act refers to the value of land •exclusively used for purposes of the business of primary production". He submits that this does not refer to a business and the word "the" as used in the sub-section could apply to one or more businesses of primary production being undertaken on the land. - It is his submission that in both cases the appellants are growing grass as one form of business of primary production while the stock owner is carrying on the business of primary production in grazing of cattle and there is thus a dual primary production use. I find no merit whatever in such a submission and I find the activities of the appellants in both cases fail to satisfy any reasonable test to qualify for a concessional valuation under the sub-section. The valuation of the Valuer-General of the land as a homesite has not been challenged and the onus to show the Valuer-General has erred in the -- 2 of 3 -- 3 valuation has not been discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer- General is affirmed. (D.J. Barry) President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --