Fernandez de Viana & Anor v The Valuer-General [1990] QLC 271

Re: Appeal against determination of Valuer-General, City of Townsville. AV90-147. LAND COURT, BRISBANE. 27th September, 1990. Jose Marie Alberto Fernandez de Viana & Pauline Fernandez de Viana v. The Valuer-General (Hearing at Townsville) DECISI O N This appeal is against the determination of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of the appellants' land - Lot 15 on Plan P.9386, Parish of Magnetic - in the sum of $50,000 for the purposes of the annual valuation of the area as at 31st March, 1989. The lot has an area of 1012 square metres. For the Valuer-General the valuation was written by Mr J.F. James, District Valuer. Mr Jose Fernandez deViana presented the case on behalf of the appellants. They value the land at $29,000. The grounds of the appeal may be summarised briefly. The appellants purchased the subject land in 1978 for $10,000 in a vacant state. At the time they had the choice of purchasing the subject lot at that price or the adjoining Lot 14 for $12,000. The adjoining lot and the subject lot are of the same shape, area and dimensions and are situated in Barbarra Street, Picnic Bay. Both lots are zoned Residential D which is a multi unit zoning allowing for 1 unit per 165 square metres of area. Both lots are unsewered. It is agreed that the maximum number of units permitted on this ratio could not be got on the subject land as it is unsewered. Mr Fernandez de Viana is of the opinion that 4 units could be constructed, whilst Mr James is of the opinion that 3/4 units may be an appropriate development. [1990] QLC 271 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 The actual development comprises a duplex dwelling. The valuation of the land therefore does not fall within any of the exceptions contained in the Act and must accordingly be valued for its highest and best use. The best guide to ascertaining value in the opinion of the appellants is the sale of Lot 14, which took place on 21.9.1988 for $35,000. It is argued that if the 1978 relativity is given consideration the subject land is, worth the sum contended to of $29,000. It is submitted further that the Court in the hearing of the previous appeal in respect of the valuation of the land as at 31st March, 1987, more or less suggested that the sale of Lot 14 which was made known to the Court should cement the value for the purposes of this revaluation, it being an after date sale for the purposes of that valuation. I have perused the decision. The Court said no more than that the sale was a relevant factor for consideration in the next (this) valuation. Mr James has also read the decision. He has considered the sale but after considering the trend in values on the Island, more particularly in Picnic Bay and Nelly Bay, he concluded that the sale land had lost its weight as a sale upon which values should be based by about November 1988 when values began an increase which continued through to June 1989 and beyond the relevant date for the purposes of this valuation. This reasoning is clearly demonstrated as the correct reasoning when sales prior to that time and during that time in Lilac Street, Nelly Bay are considered. Two of those sales will suffice in clarifying the point. Lot 14 sold in May 1988 for $25,000. The lot opposite (Lot 18) sold in March 1989 for $42,000. In Picnic Bay Lot 5 in Hurst Street sold in November 1988 for $30,000. In January 1989 Lot 8, which is only a few lots away, sold for $36,500. In all cases the sale lands possessed nothing in particular to distinguish them. The sale of Lot 8 (Hurst Street) formed one of the sales used by Mr James for direct comparison purposes. The sale lot is zoned Residential A (which is a single unit residential zone) -- 2 of 3 -- 3 and has an area of 607 square metres. It is situated opposite the golf course and further from the beach and the amenities of Picnic Bay than the subject land. The comparison is made on the footing that the subject lot with its zoning and better situation is superior to a small Residential A site in the location of the sale. In resolving issues of this kind the long established principle of the Spencer case 5 CLR 418 is the relevant principle. This principle requires that the value be ascertained at the particular date (here 31st March 1989) having regard to the market and market trends at that date. The principle speaks about prudent vendors and purchasers. These people as at that date in pricing the subject land would no doubt have regard to the market trends and pricing structure as demonstrated in the evidence of Mr James rather than the sale of Lot 14 which by that time had become stale. Accordingly I find that the appellants have failed to prove their case. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the determination of the Valuer-General affirmed. (D.M. White) Acting President of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --