Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QLAC
  3. 2018
  4. Valuer-General v Suncorp Metway Insurance Pty Limited - [2018] QLAC 6

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Valuer-General v Suncorp Metway Insurance Pty Limited[2018] QLAC 6

Valuer-General v Suncorp Metway Insurance Pty Limited[2018] QLAC 6

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Valuer-General v Suncorp Metway Insurance Pty Limited [2018] QLAC 6

PARTIES:

Valuer-General

(appellant)

v

Suncorp Metway Insurance Pty Limited

(respondent)

FILE NO:

LAC009-17

Land Court No LVA586-15

DIVISION:

Land Appeal Court

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Court of Queensland, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 September 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

8-9 March 2018 and 31 August 2018

THE COURT:

Dalton J

FY Kingham, President of the Land Court

 

PG Stilgoe, Member of the Land Court

ORDER:

  1. The appeal is allowed.
  2. The orders below are set aside.
  3. It is declared that the 2015 maintenance valuation issued by the Valuer-General for property identification number 1284749 on 17 June 2015 is invalid.
  4. The appeal LVA586-15 is otherwise dismissed.
  5. The parties must make submissions in writing as to the costs of this appeal, and the costs below, to be delivered by the applicant on 1 October 2018 and the respondent on 8 October 2018, with the applicant to provide any submissions in reply by 15 October 2018.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – where dispute at first instance about what land was valued, a volumetric lot or a group of leases – where the Member decided the volumetric lot was valued – where it was found there was no sound basis for that finding – where it was found the Member should not have proceeded to determine the value of the lot given the uncertainty about what was valued

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – PARCEL OF LAND – Land Valuation Act 2010 – where the Valuer-General purported to have valued a group of leases – whether the group of leases are land as defined in the Land Valuation Act – where the Court found the leases were not land because they were not contained in a lot or a declared parcel of land as defined – where the Court declared the valuation issued to the respondent is invalid

Land Valuation Act 2010 s 5, s 6, sch

Land Title Act 1994 sch 2

COUNSEL:

DB Fraser QC, with TW Quinn of counsel for the appellant

RJ Anderson QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

P Prasad, in-house legal Department of Natural Resources and Mines for the appellant

Luke Hinckfuss, Otto Martiens Lawyers for the respondent

  1. [1]
    DALTON J:  This is an appeal by the Valuer-General against a decision of Member Isdale given 25 August 2017. Before Member Isdale Suncorp Metway Insurance appealed against the Valuer-General’s 2015 maintenance valuation of the site operated as the Sofitel Hotel above the Brisbane Central Railway Station pursuant to s 155 of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (Qld) (LVA).

The Land held by Suncorp

  1. [2]
    Suncorp held no freehold land but had three leases from the Commissioner of Railways of areas above Central Station on Turbot Street, Brisbane. The Commissioner of Railways owned the freehold. For the most part, the leased land was used as the Sofitel Hotel.
  2. [3]
    Two of the three leases were registered in 1986: J11951 and J11952. The third was registered in 2004: 707974408. The third lease was over relatively minor areas, such as stairwells. The 1986 leases were of areas mainly occupied by the hotel. The two 1986 leases were of part of, but not all of, the land contained in Vol 4385, Folio 53 and Vol 3332, Folio 45.
  3. [4]
    In February 2007 the description of the land in Vol 4385, Folio 53 and Vol 3332, Folio 45 changed. Volumetric Lot 2 on Survey Plan 140773 was created. Essentially it was in the shape of the hotel built above the railway station. Most of the land leased by Suncorp fell within volumetric Lot 2, but some fell within Lot 6 on Survey Plan 140772 and some fell within Lot 11 on Survey Plan 165989. That is, the land leased by Suncorp was situated within Lots 2, 6 and 11. However, the land leased by Suncorp was not coterminous with any of Lots 2, 6 or 11; each of those lots contained land which was not leased to Suncorp.

Valuer-General’s Identification System

  1. [5]
    The evidence was that the Valuer-General’s office assigns property identification numbers to assist it in administering the LVA. These identification numbers are kept in a database called QVAS. In the past it was called IVAS. In this case, a property identification number ID 41108706 was assigned to volumetric Lot 2, which belonged to QRail. A separate property identification number, ID 1284749, was assigned to Suncorp, at the latest in 1996, ie., before volumetric Lot 2 was created, and before Suncorp took lease 707974408.
  2. [6]
    At some point in time, which was not identified, something (also not explained in the evidence) occurred which resulted in the Valuer-General’s records showing, “L2 SP140773: SUBLEASED” as being the real property comprised in property ID 1284749.

Subject Matter of 2015 Maintenance Valuation

  1. [7]
    The 2015 maintenance valuation notice addressed to Suncorp contained this at its head:

“Re: Valuation of property at:
  Issue Date:
  Property ID
  Valuation reference:
  Local Government:
  Real Property Description (RPD):
  Area:

249 TURBOT ST, BRISBANE CITY 4000
17 June 2015
1284749
63299507179
BRISBANE CITY (BRISBANE)
L2 SP140773:SUBLEASED:PAR NORTH BRISBANE
7,432 m²”[1]

  1. [8]
    It was against this valuation that Suncorp objected. The decision, by the Valuer-General, on Suncorp’s objection, dated 18 November 2015, contained the following at its head:

“Re: Valuation of property at:
  Property ID:
  Local Government:
  RPD:
  Area:
  Objection ID:

249 TURBOT ST, BRISBANE CITY QLD 4000
1284749
BRISBANE CITY
L2 SP140773:SUBLEASED:PAR NORTH BRISBANE
7,432 m²
20111589”

Subject Matter of the Land Court Appeal

  1. [9]
    At some point during the progress of the appeal in the Land Court, the Valuer‑General became aware that QVAS recorded the property identification number 1284749 as comprising volumetric Lot 2. Further, that the description “Area: 7,432 m²” was a description of the area of volumetric Lot 2. 
  2. [10]
    On 4 April 2017 the Valuer-General’s solicitor sent a letter to Suncorp pursuant to Ch 4 Pt 3 of the LVA which advised:

“I wish to advise that after review of the expert valuation report prepared by Mr Hart (filed in the above proceedings on 28 March 2017), the Valuer‑General has reduced the valuation of the above referenced property which comprises the land the subject of the Leases numbered J1195, J11952, and 7070674408 from $39,500,000 to $34,500,000 (as at 1 October 2015) in accordance with section 163 of the Land Valuation Act 2010.”

  1. [11]
    It was submitted on behalf of the Valuer-General that the effect of this letter was to amend, not just the dollar value in dispute in the Land Court proceedings, but the real property which had been valued. It contended that after the issue of this letter, the Court proceedings were about the value of the land comprised in the three leases.
  2. [12]
    On 21 April 2017 the Valuer-General amended its statement of facts in the Land Court proceeding so that it read as follows:

“1. In response to paragraph 1 of the Appellant’s contentions, that the subject is ‘an irregularly shaped volumetric Lot of 7,432m2 suspended above Central Railway Station’, the Respondent contends or asserts that this is broadly, but not precisely, correct.

  1. Further details of the subject property will be provided in the joint meeting process and reports of the valuation witnesses in the appeal and, as to location, appear from the plans of expert surveyors and other expert reports relating to the subject. A more precise description of the land, the subject of this appeal (the ‘Property’ or ‘subject’ or ‘subject property’), is that it is the land described in Property ID 1284749 which comprehends:

(a) Land within Lot 2 on Plan No SP140773 and land which is contained in what is now described as Lot 6 SP140772 and Lot 11 SP165989, being the land on the three Lots detailed above which is the subject of the leases to the Appellant from Queensland Rail Ltd ACN 132181090 identified as J11951, J11952 and lease 707974408;

(b) Leases J11951 and J11952 commenced in 1984 and lease 707974408 commenced in 1996. The metes and bounds descriptions of each of the leases is set out in the QVAS Property Details Report for Property ID1284749, printed on 13 April 2017 at 14:30:22, a true copy of which is annexed hereto and marked ‘MM1’;

(c) The approximate area of the Property is 7684m2 more or less.”

  1. [13]
    The Valuer-General changed the real property description and area for ID 1284749 in QVAS to accord with this in or around April 2017.[2]  It seems likely that the impetus for this came from Mr Hart, after the preparation of his expert report of 28 March 2017, see [22] below and paragraph 24 of Mr Meldon’s affidavit.
  2. [14]
    The Valuer-General contended that the real property description “L2 SP140773:SUBLEASED” and the area of 7432m2, which had appeared on QVAS, and on the 2015 notice of valuation, were errors.
  3. [15]
    Counsel for the Valuer-General submitted that because the property ID 1284749 was set up before 2007, the real property description of property known in the Valuer‑General’s system by this ID number could not originally have been volumetric Lot 2. That must be right. However, it does not say anything about what the real property description was for this identification number prior to the existence of volumetric Lot 2 in 2007, and it does not say anything about what was in fact valued by the Valuer‑General in the 2015 maintenance valuation.
  4. [16]
    At least at some point prior to 2007, the Valuer-General’s property ID 1284749 showed Suncorp as owner of “PTB L1 RP225433 & PTB L2 RP225433:PAR NORTH BRISBANE”. The property tenure was shown as freehold, which was incorrect. There was no evidence to assist in understanding the abbreviation “PTB”. The document containing this description contains a section headed “Valuer Notes”. These notes contain a detailed description of Leases J11951, J11952 and 707974408.[3]
  5. [17]
    The valuation reports presented to the Land Court were:
  • Mr Jackson (Suncorp), 16 December 2016;
  • Joint Report, 27 February 2017;
  • Mr Hart (Valuer-General), 28 March 2017.
  1. [18]
    Mr Jackson valued volumetric Lot 2.
  2. [19]
    The joint report says at paragraph 26(a) that what is valued is volumetric Lot 2. It gives the area of volumetric Lot 2, ie., 7,432m2 at paragraph 26(b), and at table 1 shows the areas of Lease J11951.[4]  As well, it shows two small leased areas (39m2 and 8m2). These latter two areas are parts of, but not the entire areas leased by Suncorp, in Leases J11952 and 707974408. At paragraph 37 of the joint report the valuers agreed “that the boundaries of volumetric Lot 2 and the registered leases are coincidental”. It may therefore be that the areas of J11952 and 707974408 which are included in table 1 of the joint expert report are the parts of those leases which are within volumetric Lot 2.[5]
  3. [20]
    It was not until Mr Hart delivered his March 2017 report that he realised[6] that the real property description on the QVAS system was not a description of the three leases occupied by Suncorp.
  4. [21]
    In his March 2017 report, Mr Hart gives the subject matter of his valuation as:

“Part of Volumetric Lot 2 on Survey Plan 140773

  Part of Lot 6 on Survey Plan 140772

  Part of Lot 11 on Survey Plan 165989

  Situated above the Brisbane Central Station” – p 5.

  1. [22]
    At paragraph 20 of his March 2017 report Mr Hart explains that, “At the time of issuing the Maintenance Valuation Notice, the RPD and Area was reported incorrectly as it did not state Lot 6 and Lot 11. The correction has now been made. I also note that an error was made [in the joint report]. It should be read in conjunction with this report. …”.
  2. [23]
    Mr Hart’s oral evidence was that in the joint report his opinion was given as to the value of the land described there, as outlined in table 1 of that report. That is, in the joint report, his opinion was given as to the value of volumetric Lot 2.[7]  In his March 2017 report he has valued the area of land in the three leased areas.[8]

Land Valuation Act 2010

  1. [24]
    The LVA provides at s 4 that the main purpose of the Act is to “provide for how land is to be valued for particular other Acts”. At s 5(1) it is provided that the Valuer-General must “decide the value of land, as provided for under this Act, for the purposes mentioned in section 6.”  The statutory purposes (s 6) are: assessing land tax; levying rates, and calculating rent under the Land Act 1994 (Qld).

Land

  1. [25]
    Land is defined in the LVA as follows:

“land—

(a) for a provision—

  1. (i)
    about a valuation or valuation notice—means the land the subject of the valuation or notice; or
  1. (ii)
    about an objection or valuation appeal—means the land the subject of the valuation; and

(b) may comprise—

  1. (i)
    1 or more lots or parcels; or
  1. (ii)
    a combination of lots and parcels.”
  1. [26]
    For present purposes, it is subparagraph (b) of this definition which is of concern. It is concerned with two concepts: lots and parcels. In my view, the three leases held by Suncorp Metway Insurance, together, or separately, are neither a lot, nor a parcel, within this definition. I will explain why.

Lot

  1. [27]
    The word “lot” is separately defined in the LVA, and for present purposes, the only relevant part of that definition is subparagraph (a), “a lot under the Land Title Act”.
  2. [28]
    The definition of “lot” in the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) is:

“lot means a separate, distinct parcel of land created on—

  1. (a)
    the registration of a plan of subdivision; or
  1. (b)
    the recording of particulars of an instrument;

and includes a lot under the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980.”

  1. [29]
    It was argued by the appellant Valuer-General that the registered plans associated with the three leases to Suncorp were sufficient to create land within the meaning of s 5 of the LVA. I reject this submission.
  2. [30]
    On 9 January 1987 Leases J11951 and J11952 were registered. They granted a leasehold estate to Suncorp for a term of 75 years. The Commissioner of Railways, the registered proprietor of the fee simple, granted the leases. The areas leased were parts of the land contained in Vol 4385, Folio 53 and Vol 3332, Folio 45. The land leased was required to be described in a way which identified it – s 52 Real Property Act 1861 (Qld). The form of Leases J11951 and J11952 looks to be, or to be based upon, Form E to that Act.[9]  That form contained the note, “If the land to be dealt with contains all that is included in an existing grant or certificate of title, refer thereto for description and diagrams; otherwise set forth the boundaries in metres, and refer to a plan thereof on margin of or annexed to the lease, or deposited in the Registry Office”. The law at the time was that the Registrar could require a plan to be deposited which was certified by a surveyor.[10]
  3. [31]
    On the same date as Leases J11951 and J11952 were registered, Plans 205710 and 205711 were also registered. These showed surveyed representations of the areas to be leased pursuant to Leases J11951 and J11952. These plans were registered, no doubt, in accordance with the law and practice described above. They are very detailed and certainly show “separate and distinct” areas of land which were the subject of the two leases, to use the words of the current definition of lot in the Land Title Act. However, the registered plans did not create any land within the meaning of that definition. They simply identified the land which was leased. While the two leases might be said to have created leasehold estates, and the terms of them, they did not create land.[11]
  4. [32]
    For these reasons, Suncorp’s three leases were not lots of land.

Parcel

  1. [33]
    Parcel is defined in the LVA to mean:

“(a) land that is a lot; or

  (b) a part of a lot that is a declared parcel.”[12]

  1. [34]
    “Declared parcel” is also a defined term. The definition refers the reader to s 53(5) of the LVA. This section appears in Ch 2 Pt 3 of the LVA which deals with land to be included in valuations. The first division of the part contains only one section, s 52, which provides:

“Subject to the other provisions of this part, a separate single valuation must be made for each lot.”

  1. [35]
    Division 2 provides an exception to that general rule in granting power to the Valuer‑General to create a “declared parcel”. Section 53 provides:
  1. “(1)
    The valuer-general may declare that a separate valuation, from the rest of a lot, will be made for a stated part of the lot (a separation declaration).

…

  1. (2)
    However, a separation declaration may be made only if—
  1. (a)
    either—
  1. (i)
    it is possible to lawfully subdivide the stated part from the rest of the lot; or
  1. (ii)
    … , and
  1. (b)
    the valuer-general considers circumstances relating to the value of the part make a separate valuation of it appropriate.

Example of circumstances for subsection (2)(b)—

1 A building on the part is occupied separately, or adapted to being occupied separately, from the rest of the lot.

2 The part is used, or is suitable to be used, for a purpose different from the purpose for which the rest of the lot is used, or is suitable to be used.

Note—

The effect of the declaration is that the part becomes a parcel itself—see the schedule, definition parcel, paragraph (b).

  1. (3)
    This section applies to leased land if the lease is—
  1. (a)
    from any of the following of land leased, by the following, from the State—
  1. (i)
    a local government;
  1. (ii)
    a department;
  1. (iii)
    an entity representing the State; or
  1. (b)
    from a GOC or rail government entity, of land leased by the GOC or rail government entity from—
  1. (i)
    the State; or
  1. (ii)
    a lessee of the State.
  1. (4)
    Otherwise, this section does not apply to land leased from the State.
  1. (5)
    The part that is the subject of the declaration is a declared parcel.
  1. (6)
    To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (2)(a) does not require that a subdivision has been sought or made for the stated part.”
  1. [36]
    It can be seen how close the statutory example at s 53(2)(b) is to the facts of this case.
  2. [37]
    The area of the three leases occupied by Suncorp has never been declared to be a declared parcel. It might be thought that s 53(3)(b) and s 53(4) prevent the Valuer-General declaring the three leased areas held by Suncorp Metway Insurance are a parcel: QRail owns the land in fee simple.
  3. [38]
    For these reasons, Suncorp’s three leases were not a parcel of land within the meaning of the LVA.

Scheme of the Act

  1. [39]
    Divisions 3 and 4 of Ch 2 Pt 3 of the LVA (broadly speaking) provide that:

● adjoining lots in the same ownership and occupation are to be valued together, and

● separate lots in a parcel or parcels should be valued separately where they are leased or subleased to different persons.

  1. [40]
    Taken together, Divs 2, 3 and 4 of Ch 2 Pt 3 of the LVA show an intention that

● areas of land not coterminous with a lot, but used or occupied separately, are to be valued separately by declaring a parcel;

● separate valuations are to issue for land which is occupied by different persons (whether the interest is freehold or leasehold), and

● land which is in the occupation of the same person (whether freehold or leasehold) is to be valued in the same valuation.

  1. [41]
    All this makes sense when the statutory purposes of valuation are considered, for it may be that different persons are liable to pay land tax and/or rates in relation to land they own or occupy, whether at general law, or pursuant to commercial agreements such as leases.
  2. [42]
    Notwithstanding this statutory scheme, there is no provision for a valuation to issue in relation to something which is not either a lot or a declared parcel as defined.
  3. [43]
    Lastly, while the definition of land in the LVA does use the words “may comprise” at subsection (b), I do not read those words as meaning that real property not within the definition of a lot or a declared parcel is land within the power of the Valuer-General to value pursuant to s 5 of the LVA. The provisions of Ch 2 Pt 3 of the LVA with their emphasis on lots and declared parcels, and their specific provisions for separation declarations to be made, are conclusively against such an idea.
  4. [44]
    Having regard to the foregoing, my view is that Suncorp’s three leases were not land to be valued under the LVA.

Issues on this Appeal

  1. [45]
    The Valuer-General’s case was that the subject matter of the 2015 maintenance valuation, and thus the subject matter of the dispute in the Land Court, was the area of the three leases held by Suncorp. The Valuer-General contended that at some point in time an erroneous description of the real property labelled ID 1284749 was entered onto the QVAS system but that, in substance, the real property valued under that ID number was always the three leases. The Valuer-General relied upon the fact that the property identification number 1284749 was in existence before volumetric Lot 2. That is certainly some support for its position. The old IVASE description, see [16] above, adds more support to it. However, at the time of the 2015 maintenance valuation the real property identified as ID 1284749 was shown in QVAS as volumetric Lot 2. Its area was that of volumetric Lot 2. Mr Hart, who is the Principal Valuer in the State Valuation Service,[13] thought that property ID 1284749 referred to volumetric Lot 2 until around March 2017. He valued volumetric Lot 2 as late as 27 February 2017 (joint report). There is no direct evidence as to what was valued to arrive at the 2015 maintenance valuation.
  2. [46]
    The Valuer-General relied on an argument that because Suncorp did not own or occupy the whole of volumetric Lot 2, but in fact occupied the area of the three leases, the area of the three leases was the only sensible area of real property to be the subject matter of property ID 1284749. It was said that the Court should conclude that the purpose of the Valuer-General’s having set up this property identification number was to allow a “ratings valuation” to issue in respect of the land Suncorp occupied. Reliance was placed upon the fact that there was another property identification number, ID 41108706, attributed to volumetric Lot 2, to allow a “land tax valuation” to be made for the owner of volumetric Lot 2 – QRail.[14] 
  3. [47]
    No doubt it is necessary for the Valuer-General to maintain a roll of properties and to maintain a system which allows the issuing of valuations which are able to be used for the statutory purposes set out at s 6 of the LVA. However, it seems to me that the Valuer‑General, in this argument, places too much emphasis on its system, and pays too little heed to the provisions of the Act. The Act does not know any concept of “rating valuation” or “land tax valuation”. The Act is not concerned with property identification numbers. The Act requires that land, as defined, be valued. While it might be convenient for rating purposes for the Valuer-General to value the area of the three leases held by Suncorp, it did not have legal power to do so, as discussed above. Furthermore, the Valuer-General did not produce any clear evidence that it has ever in fact valued the area of the three leases, either in the past, or in issuing its 2015 maintenance valuation.
  4. [48]
    I am not prepared to conclude, even on the balance of probabilities, that the subject of the 2015 maintenance valuation was the area of three leases granted to Suncorp. I am no more certain that the subject of the maintenance valuation was volumetric Lot 2. Although that is what the valuation notice said, I do not read subparagraph (a)(i) of the definition of land in the LVA as a deeming provision. It seems to me that the subject matter of the 2015 maintenance valuation is simply uncertain on the evidence before this Court.
  5. [49]
    If the real property the subject of the 2015 maintenance valuation was indeed the area of the three leases held by Suncorp then, in my opinion, the valuation notice was invalid. For reasons explained above, the Valuer-General could not value this area of real property because it was not land as defined.
  6. [50]
    If the true subject of the maintenance valuation was volumetric Lot 2, the Valuer‑General’s position is that it was issued in error. That is, the Valuer-General contends that a valuation of volumetric Lot 2 is not relevant to Suncorp, and not appropriate to its property identification number 1284749.
  7. [51]
    In the hearing below, the Valuer-General asserted that its notice pursuant to s 163 of the LVA given on 4 April 2017 – [10] above, corrected the error in its Notice of Valuation. The Member below held that the notice was inapt to change the description of land the subject matter of the 2015 maintenance valuation. I think that determination was correct. Chapter 4 Pt 3 of the LVA is concerned with amendments which are made as a response to an objection. The Valuer‑General’s change to the subject matter of the 2015 maintenance valuation did not come as a response to the objection. It seems to me the Valuer-General would have had power to amend the 2015 maintenance valuation pursuant to s 95(1) of the LVA. However, any amendment would have been to the effect that the valuation was of the three leased areas. Such an amendment would render the notice invalid for the reasons discussed at above.
  8. [52]
    In my view, the Member below was wrong to continue to hear and determine the appeal below once the uncertainty as to the subject matter of the maintenance valuation became apparent. I cannot see on the evidence that there was any sound basis to decide that the subject matter of the 2015 maintenance valuation was volumetric Lot 2. But even if the Member was correct to find that the subject matter of the notice was volumetric Lot 2, the proceeding before him should not have continued in circumstances where the Valuer-General did not seek to contend for a value of volumetric Lot 2, and Suncorp was not an owner or lessee of volumetric Lot 2.[15]  Further, Queensland Rail had an interest in the proceeding. It owns volumetric Lot 2 and, albeit under another property identification number, the Valuer‑General had a current valuation for that land which was much higher than the valuation for which Suncorp contended, and which the Member below accepted. It was not served with the appeal to the Land Court.

Disposition

  1. [53]
    In all the circumstances, it seems to me that this Court should:
  1. allow the appeal;
  1. set aside the orders below;
  1. declare the 2015 maintenance valuation issued by the Valuer-General for property identification number 1284749 on 17 June 2015 is invalid, and
  1. otherwise dismiss appeal LVA 586-15.
  1. [54]
    I would direct that the parties make submissions in writing as to the costs of this appeal, and the costs below, to be delivered by the applicant on 1 October 2018 and the respondent on 8 October 2018, with the applicant to provide any submissions in reply by 15 October 2018.
  2. [55]
    KINGHAM P: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons prepared by Dalton J and, respectfully, agree with the reasons and the orders proposed. I wish to add some further brief observations about the Valuer-General’s submission that a declaration would be inappropriate because it is possible to have 2 valid valuations for the one lot for different statutory purposes.
  3. [56]
    It seems to me this submission is affected by the same error identified by her Honour at [47] of her reasons. It relies on the Valuer-General’s system rather than any provisions of the Act.
  4. [57]
    Further, it assumes the Court would decide that the Valuer-General valued volumetric lot 2. I agree with her Honour’s conclusion there is no sound basis for making that finding.
  5. [58]
    In any case, the subject matter of the declaration is the 2015 maintenance valuation issued for property identification number 1284749. Correctly described, the area of land so identified is the area of the leases, not volumetric lot 2. Having concluded the Valuer-General cannot value the leases, it follows a maintenance valuation issued in relation to that property identification number must be invalid.
  6. [59]
    MEMBER STILGOE: I have had the benefit of reading Dalton J and Kingham P’s reasons in draft. I agree with their Honours’ reasons and conclusions, as well as Dalton J’s orders.

ORDER:

  1. The appeal is allowed.
  2. The orders below are set aside.
  3. It is declared that the 2015 maintenance valuation issued by the Valuer-General for property identification number 1284749 on 17 June 2015 is invalid.
  4. The appeal LVA586-15 is otherwise dismissed.
  5. The parties must make submissions in writing as to the costs of this appeal, and the costs below, to be delivered by the applicant on 1 October 2018 and the respondent on 8 October 2018, with the applicant to provide any submissions in reply by 15 October 2018.

DALTON J

FY KINGHAM

PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT

PG STILGOE

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT

Footnotes

[1]  Annexure D to Mr Hart’s report of 28 March 2017.

[2]  See paragraph 23 of the affidavit of Mr Meldon sworn 13 April 2017, filed in the Land Court below.

[3]  This information is contained in the document at pp 2529-2530 of the Appeal Record, headed “IVASE PROPERTY DETAILS REPORT”, and dated 21 December 2005.

[4]  Compare this table to Mr Hart’s table 2 at p 9 of his report of March 2017.

[5]  This seems to be what the final sentence in paragraph 29 of the joint expert report says.

[6]  T 5-36, lines 11 to 20.

[7]  Ibid.

[8]  See the terms of that report and T 5-76, lines 17 to 18.

[9]  Reprint to 31 January 1981, p 68.

[10]  Section 120 Real Property Act 1861 and see Re Lehrer and the Real Property Act 1900 [1960] NSWR 570, 579, 580 as noted in Francis, The Law and Practice Relating to Torrens Title in Australasia, Vol 1, p 272.

[11]  I do note that RP205710 and RP205711 contain a consent to subdivision on behalf of the Commissioner of Railways. I think this must be a mistake. It was not contended by the Valuer-General that the plans operated as a subdivision and indeed clearly they did not, for in 2007, when the land in Vol 4385, Folio 53 and Vol 3332, Folio 45 was transformed into volumetric Lot 2, there was no recognition that there had been any earlier subdivision of that land.

[12]  I notice that the LVA does use the word “parcel” in ways which are difficult to reconcile with this definition. For example, subparagraph (b) of the definition of “lot” speaks of a parcel which, when the chain of definitions in the Act is considered, is unlikely to mean a declared parcel. However, it is clear that that definition is not relevant to the present case. Another example is found at ss 49-51 of the LVA. It is not entirely clear whether the word “parcel” in these sections must mean a lot, or if it means something different, and something different from a declared parcel. In this regard see also s 56(1), which does seem to imply that a s 50 parcel is something different from a declared parcel. The sections do not apply to this case and need not be further considered.

[13]  T 5-29.

[14]  The relevant QVAS entry is at exhibit 2 of Mr Meldon’s affidavit.

[15]  Sections 103(1) and 105(1) of the LVA, and the definition of owner in the Dictionary Schedule.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Valuer-General v Suncorp Metway Insurance Pty Limited

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Valuer-General v Suncorp Metway Insurance Pty Limited

  • MNC:

    [2018] QLAC 6

  • Court:

    QLAC

  • Judge(s):

    Dalton J, Kingham P, Member Stilgoe

  • Date:

    24 Sep 2018

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Re Lehrer and the Real Property Act [1960] NSWR 570
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1960] NSWR 570

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Mirvac Queensland Pty. Ltd. v Valuer-General [2019] QLC 12 citations
Valuer-General v Suncorp Metway Insurance Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] QLAC 81 citation
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.