Your JavaScript is currently disabled. For the best experience viewing this website please enable JavaScript as described here.

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments

Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen version of this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please return to the case for PDF printing options.

Word Highlighter:
0of0
Change Font and Font Size
Font:
Font Size:
CITE

Unreported Judgment

Body Corporate for Wendall Court Community Titles Scheme 14392 v Valuer-General[2015] QLC 16MacDonald P
Add to List

Body Corporate for Wendall Court Community Titles Scheme 14392 v Valuer-General[2015] QLC 16

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Body Corporate for Wendall Court & Anor v Valuer-General [2015] QLC 16
PARTIES:	Body Corporate for Wendall Court Community Titles Scheme 14392 (appellant) v Valuer-General (respondent)
	Body Corporate for Whispering Winds Community Titles Scheme 14455 v Valuer-General (respondent)
FILE NO:	LVA361-13 (Wendall Court) LVA363-13 (Whispering Winds)
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Appeals against annual valuations
DELIVERED ON:	12 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	12 May 2014
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
PRESIDENT:	CAC MacDonald
ORDER:	Appeal LVA361-13 is dismissed. The site value of Lots 1 – 4 on BUP 689 in the County of Ward, Parish of Tallebudgera, as at 1 October 2012, is affirmed at One Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000). Appeal LVA363-13 is dismissed. The site value of Lots 1 – 4 on BUP 625 in the County of Ward, Parish of Tallebudgera, as at 1 October 2012, is affirmed at One Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,950,000).
CATCHWORDS:	Land Valuation Act 2010 ‒ Valuation of particular properties ‒ absolute beach frontage ‒ rate per metre-ocean front component ‒ frontage to depth ratio ‒ battle axe block ‒ boardwalk ‒ esplanade ‒ ocean sea wall ‒ outlook ‒ uninterrupted views. Valuation ‒ particular factors in valuation ‒ allowable density ‒ strata title ‒ highest and best use ‒ five level complex ‒ car parking ‒ future development ‒ airport proximity ‒ corner position ‒ building height restrictions ‒ Tourist and Residential Domain (RD6) ‒ town planning restrictions-impact assessable ‒ amenity ‒ unmade road. Statutory valuations ‒ Land Valuation Act 2010 s 5(1) ‒ valuer-general must decide value of land, s 17(1) what is expected realisation, s 18(1) what is bona fide sale, s 46(1) enhancements must be disregarded, s 47(1) single dwelling house. Statutory valuations ‒ sales and other basic evidence ‒ best evidence of value ‒ lightly improved sales preferred ‒ improved sales ‒ valuation of improvements ‒ inaccurate assessment ‒ high risk of error ‒ post valuation date sales ‒ mortgagee in possession ‒ depreciated value ‒ original condition ‒ demolition costs ‒ valuers expertise and opinion ‒ older sale ‒ inappropriate adjustment to analysed sale ‒ Liat Nominees Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands. Statutory valuations ‒ relativity ‒ untenable to adopt if no sound basis ‒ vacant or lightly improved sales preferred ‒ not preferred to exclusion of relevant sales ‒ valuer-general should correct errors not make inaccurate assessment to secure uniformity Statutory valuations ‒ methodology ‒ valuer-general ‒ written reports - sales - applied values not disclosed ‒ concessional values ‒ applied values not analysed values not used for site or unimproved values ‒ Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources v Radlett Enterprises Pty Ltd. Barnwell v Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 13 Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources v Radlett Enterprises Pty Ltd (1997-98) 18 QLCR 397 Clough v The Valuer-General (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70 WM and T Fisher v Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 Gatfield v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 55 Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327 Ladies Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee [1932] 2 KB 679 Liat Nominees Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands (1996-1997) 16 QLCR 687 Musemeci v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 15 Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378 Land Valuation Act 2010
APPEARANCES:	Mr KE Bentley, agent, for the appellants Mr PS Prasad, Legal Officer, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

Background

[1]
This decision deals with two appeals against annual valuations of two parcels of land issued by the respondent, the Valuer-General, as at 1 October 2012, under the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (the Act).
[2]
Appeal LVA361-13 is concerned with the valuation of a property situated at 307 Golden Four Drive, Bilinga, owned by the Body Corporate for Wendall Court. The respondent’s site valuation of the property at the relevant date was $1,800,000. The appellant contended for a site value of $1,150,000.
[3]
Appeal LVA363-13 deals with a parcel of land situated at 2 Sea Street, Tugun, owned by the Body Corporate for Whispering Winds. The site valuation of that property as issued by the respondent was $1,950,000 as at the relevant date. The appellant contended for a site value of $1,300,000.
[4]
Mr KE Bentley, who is the chairman of the bodies corporate for Wendall Court and Whispering Winds and an owner of one unit in Wendall Court and two units in Whispering Winds, appeared as agent for and gave evidence on behalf of the appellant in each appeal. The respondent was represented by Mr P Prasad, Legal Officer, Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The respondent called Mr A Elliott, a registered valuer, to give valuation evidence in respect of both appeals. Mr Elliott is employed by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, based at Robina.
[5]
With the agreement of the parties, the appeals were heard together and the evidence in one was, where relevant, treated as the evidence in the other.
[6]
Wendall Court has an area of 671 m². Mr Elliott described the property as comprising a hatchet shaped rear allotment situated to the eastern side of Golden Four Drive within the established beachfront residential area of Bilinga. The handle of the hatchet provides laneway access from Golden Four Drive to the main body of the property.
[7]
The land is situated approximately 3.5 km north-west of the Coolangatta CBD, and all local and regional amenities are located within a 5 km radius. Golden Four Drive is a two lane, bitumen sealed, dual carriageway with concrete kerb and channelling.
[8]
Mr Elliott said that the site is near level and features a 20 m absolute beach frontage. Leaving aside the handle of the hatchet, he estimated the usable site area at 521 m² (20 m frontage with 26 m depth). The laneway access represents the balance land area of approximately 150 m².
[9]
Electricity, reticulated town water, sewerage and telephone are connected. The subject site is located in the Tourist and Residential Domain (RD6) in the relevant town plan. There is an allowable density of 1 bedroom per 33 m² of net site area with a five storey height limit.
[10]
A 1972 style part 3 level strata title unit building is constructed on the site. The building comprises four 2 bedroom units with individual floor areas of approximately 98 m² to 105 m², each with a ground floor single garage.
[11]
Whispering Winds has an area of 531 m². Mr Elliott described the property as situated on the south eastern side of Sea Street within the established beachside residential area of Tugun, to the southern end of the Gold Coast. The property is located approximately 3.5 kms north-west of the Coolangatta CBD, with all local amenities within a 5 km radius. Sea Street is a bitumen sealed cul-de-sac with concrete kerb and channelling. Access to the subject property is easy and unrestricted from Sea Street.
[12]
Mr Elliott said that the subject parcel comprises a near level rectangular shape corner allotment, occupying an absolute beachfront position. The site is a prime north-east facing corner site affording unrestricted ocean views. It has a 20 m frontage to the beach with a frontage to Sea Street of approximately 27 m. Electricity, reticulated town water, sewerage and telephone are connected.
[13]
The land is designated Tourist and Residential Domain (RD6) with a maximum of 1 bedroom per 33 m² (maximum of 16 bedrooms), with a five storey height control.
[14]
A 1972 style part 3 level strata title unit building is constructed on the subject site. Whispering Winds comprises four 2 bedroom units with individual floor areas of approximately 120 m² area, each with a single ground floor garage.
[15]
In Mr Elliott’s opinion the highest and best use for the subject sites was, in each case, for a 5 level unit complex with basement car parking and a configuration of one unit per floor, similar to more recently developed sites in the area. He considered that the existing 1970s units on the subject sites were an underdevelopment of each site.

Grounds of appeal

[16]
It is convenient to set out initially the grounds of appeal for Wendall Court:

Wendall Court was built in 1968 and is a copy of another building, Whispering Winds, 2 Sea Street, Tugun. I can’t be 100% sure but was probably built by the same builder.

On 24/11/2012, the sale of Unit 1 Whispering Winds, was recorded at $520,000.

Given that this site would probably be valued at a similar figure or less (does not have the same street access) the total site value including the building could be estimated at $1,900,000 to $2,000,000. The replacement value of the building is in the vicinity of $1,600,000 (attached valuation) and a current depreciated value of $750,000 would not be considered excessive. In January 2013 the building suffered storm damage and the repair costs exceed $200,000.

Sales in this area (Tugun to Bilinga beach front) have been minimal over the past twelve months, and buyers are very cautious due to the activity by GCCC to reinstate the public access walkway/cycle path between Bilinga and Tugun Surf Clubs (Pacific Parade). This represents a loss of security and privacy that the area has offered in the past.

As per the attached sales history in the area, it can be seen that the average site rate/m² is $2,450 whereas this site is $3,177/m². As this is a battle axed block, I have shown the size that represents the usable area. Many of the properties within the analysis are for full blocks as existing and future developments would certainly avail all unit holders beach frontage. I will elaborate on the spreadsheet in person. Taking into account the definition of site value for a property, I will ask that the value be reduced as requested.

[17]
The grounds of appeal for Whispering Winds are very similar:

On 24/11/12 Lot 1 Whispering Winds, 2 Sea Street, Tugun was purchased by KE and GA Bentley for a price of $520,000 which included all fixtures, fittings and furnishings etc. This sale was by auction which tends to reflect the current market value. The auction was on site, fabulous weather, and attended by some 50 persons. This equates to an overall value for the building and land of $2,080,000.

The replacement value of the building is in the vicinity of $1,600,000 (attached valuation of identical building Wendall Court) and a current depreciated value of $750,000 would not be considered excessive. In January 2013, the building suffered storm damage and the repair cost has been in excess of $200,000.

Sales in this area (Tugun to Bilinga beach front) have been minimal over the past twelve months and buyers are very cautious due to the activity by GCCC to reinstate the public access walkway/cycle path between Bilinga and Tugun Surf Clubs (Pacific Parade). This represents a loss of security and privacy that the area has offered in the past.

As per the attached sales history in the area, it can be seen that the average site rate/m² is $2,450, whereas this site is $3,672/m². Many of the properties within the analysis are for full blocks as existing and future developments would certainly avail all unit holders beach frontage. I will elaborate on the spreadsheet in person.

Taking into account the definition of site value for a property, I would ask that the value be reduced as requested.

Legal Principles

[18]
Section 5(1) of the Land Valuation Act requires the Valuer-General to decide the value of land as provided for under the Act. Section 7(a) provides that for non-rural land the value of land is its site value. The subject land in each appeal is improved non-rural land.
[19]
Section 19(1) of the Act provides:

“19 What is the site value of improved land

(1)
If land is improved, its site value is its expected realisation under a bona fide sale assuming all non-site improvements for the land had not been made.

[20]
The “expected realisation” of land is defined in s 17 as:

“17 What is the land’s expected realisation

(1)
The expected realisation of land under a bona fide sale is the capital sum that its unencumbered estate in fee simply might be expected to realise if that estate were negotiated for sale as a bona fide sale.
(2)
In this section –

unencumberedmeans unencumbered by any lease, agreement for lease, mortgage or other charge.”

[21]
Section 18 provides that a “bona fide” sale is:

"18 What is a bona fide sale

(1)
A bona fide sale, for land, is its sale on reasonable terms and conditions that a bona fide seller and buyer would require assuming the following (the bona fide sale tests) -

(a)
a willing, but not anxious, buyer and seller;

(b)
a reasonable period within which to negotiate the sale;

(2)
For subsection (1), in considering whether terms and conditions are reasonable, regard must be had to -

(a)
the land’s location and nature; and

(b)
the state of the market for land of the same type.

(3)
To remove any doubt, it is declared that if -

(a)
there is a sale of the land in question; and

(b)
the bona fide sale tests are complied with;

the sale is a bona fide sale.

(4)
In this section -

land in question means land whose value is being decided."

[22]
The authorities are clear that the best evidence of value for the purposes of an unimproved valuation made under the Act, is the sales of unimproved or lightly improved comparable land^[1]. This is because the Act says, in s 19(1), that the site value of land is the value that would be expected to be realized under a bona fide sale, assuming the non-site improvements had not been made. Selection of sales of vacant or lightly improved land, rather than sales of improved properties, avoids the difficulties and errors likely to arise in analysing improved sales. Thus in Clough v The Valuer-General^[2], the Land Appeal Court said that:

"It has been judicially laid down many times and in many jurisdictions that in ascertaining unimproved value, sales of unimproved land of comparable quality, situation, etc., to the subject parcel, if they are available, are to be preferred as the best guide for arriving at unimproved value. The reason is obvious. In applying such sales there is no room for error in analyzing the value of improvements.

Because there is less room for difference of opinion as to value of the various items of improvement and comparison is thus simpler, it has been held that highly improved sales should be avoided in preference to sales comprising a lesser degree of improvement."

[23]
In these appeals, it is the site value of the subject land that is in issue, not the unimproved value. Nevertheless the same approach should be adopted. That is, the best basis for assessment of site value under the Act is the use of sales of comparable parcels of land with similar site improvements to the subject, but which are otherwise vacant or lightly improved^[3].
[24]
Mr Bentley raised two main issues in his submissions at the hearing – that the valuations of the subject properties were out of relativity with the valuations of other properties in the relevant area and that the sales evidence did not support the values applied to the subject properties by the respondent.
[25]
It is convenient to deal initially with Mr Bentley’s relativity submissions.

Relativity

[26]
Mr Bentley’s evidence was that the respondent’s valuations of the subject properties lacked relativity with the valuations of other properties in the area:

Whispering Sands, located at 339 Golden Four Drive, immediately adjoins Whispering Winds (2 Sea Street) to the rear. Both have the same area. The site value of Whispering Sands is $600,000 compared with the site value of Whispering Winds which is $1,950,000. Both blocks have unrestricted ocean views which cannot be built out because both are bounded by Sea Street. The value attributed to Whispering Winds overvalued the beachfront location of Whispering Winds because the construction of the building currently on the site was such that the rear part of the building did not have ocean views.

The site value of Carpe Diem situated at 319 Golden Four Drive, is $540,000 for 489 m². The parcel has the same aspect as the Sea Street properties in that it is a corner block with beautiful ocean views from inside the building. The property is developed with a 4 or 5 level new building. Mr Bentley estimated the value of the building at $3,000,000 relying on sales of individual units, and the land at $2,000,000.

The property in front of Carpe Diem, 2 Short Street, has a site value of $1,750,000. Again, said Mr Bentley, the rear block is less than a third of the value of the front block which was not justified because the rear block has unobstructed views, unable to be built out because the property adjoins a street.

By contrast, the site value of the property at 368 Pacific Parade, Tugun, which was very comparable with Wendall Court, was $1,500,000 or $3,024/m² which was out of proportion to the larger properties.

Azure, located at 351 Golden Four Drive, has an area of 1,123m². The site has been developed with a modern building with one unit per floor. Mr Bentley estimated the total value of the improved property to be $7,950,000, with the value of the building estimated at $5,000,000 and the land at $2,950,000. Mr Bentley mentioned this property to remove the thought that the front part of the block has a higher value.

[27]
The thrust of Mr Bentley’s submissions as to the lack of relativity in the respondent’s valuations was that, in general, beachfront land has been valued approximately 3 times higher than otherwise comparable rear land, and that at least in some cases that was unwarranted.
[28]
As discussed above, the authorities are clear that the best basis for assessment of unimproved or site value under the Act is the use of sales of vacant or lightly improved parcels of land. However the courts have also recognized that it is desirable that valuations made for the purposes of the Act of comparable lands should bear proper relativity, one to the other, if the valuations are soundly based. It is however, untenable to adopt a value for one parcel on relativity with another which has no sound basis^[4]. Further, while maintenance of correct relativity is of considerable importance for rating valuation, the use of the principle of relativity should not be preferred to the exclusion of relevant sales^[5].
[29]
It follows that the question of whether the values attributed to the beachfront properties are too high is to be determined primarily by consideration of the relevant sales evidence. That evidence is discussed below. The associated question of whether the valuations of the rear properties are too low was not addressed in the sales evidence, since the subject properties are located on the beachfront. There is therefore no sufficient evidence before me to enable me to say whether the rear properties have been undervalued. It must be said, however, that even if it were established that errors had occurred in the valuations of the rear properties, the respondent should correct such errors rather than making an inaccurate assessment of the beachfront land in order to secure uniformity in the valuations^[6].
[30]
It should also be noted that Mr Bentley’s submission that the Whispering Winds site was overvalued, because no views were available from the rear of the building currently constructed on the land, overlooks the fact that the land is to be valued on the assumption that the non-site improvements had not been made (s 19(1)). Therefore the disadvantages of the existing building cannot be taken into account for the purposes of this valuation.

Appellants’ valuations

[31]
As can be seen in the notices of appeal, Mr Bentley’s primary approach to estimating the site values of the subject properties was as follows:

unit 1 in Whispering Winds sold in November 2012 for $520,000;
on that basis the total improved value of Wendall Court would be $1,900,000 to $2,000,000;
similarly, the total improved value of Whispering Winds would be $2,080,000;
the value of the Wendall Court improvements was $1,600,000, relying on an insurance report which valued the buildings and other improvements at $1,527,000. A current depreciated value of $750,000 would not be excessive, Mr Bentley said.
the value of the Whispering Winds improvements was $1,600,000 relying on the same insurance report. Similarly, a current depreciated value of $750,000 would not be excessive.
Accordingly, for each property Mr Bentley deducted the depreciated value of the building from the total value, to reach a site value.

[32]
Mr Bentley provided a spreadsheet containing brief details of ten sales of properties in the vicinity of the subject properties. Most of the sales were improved properties. For the improved sales, Mr Bentley’s approach was similar to the approach he had adopted in estimating the site value of the subject properties. That is, he deducted his estimate of the value of the building on the sale property from the sale price to reach the site value for the property as a whole, and also on a rate per square metre basis. In the case of a sale of a unit, Mr Bentley multiplied the sale price of the unit by the number of units in the building to reach what he described as the “total value” of the property. Again he deducted his estimate of the building value to reach the site value in total, and on a rate per square metre basis.
[33]
Mr Bentley analyzed most of his sales, including a sale of a unit in Whispering Winds, in this way. In all of the cases except Whispering Winds he was satisfied that the resulting site value of the sale property, on a rate per square metre basis, was similar to the site value of that property as determined by the respondent. In the case of Whispering Winds, the rate resulting from his analysis of the sale was $2,505/m² whereas the site value determined by the respondent was $3,672/m², which demonstrated, Mr Bentley said, that the valuation of Whispering Winds was in error.
[34]
For the reasons set out above in my discussion of the relevant legal principles, I cannot accept the valuation methodology adopted by Mr Bentley. There is a high risk of error in Mr Bentley’s approach because of the difficulties in valuing the improvements accurately. As explained above, the best method of valuation, for the purposes of ascertaining site value, is the use of sales of vacant or lightly improved land. Three of Mr Bentley’s sales fall into that category (325 Golden Four Drive, 232 Pacific Parade and 289A Golden Four Drive) as do the respondent’s sales. Those sales provide the best evidence available for the purposes of this valuation and they are to be used in preference to Mr Bentley’s other improved sales. The unimproved and lightly improved sales are considered in detail below.

Respondent’s valuation

[35]
Mr Elliott valued the Wendall Court site at $1,800,000 which reflects a rate of $2,682/m² and a rate per metre of beach frontage of $90,000. He said that the effective rate of the net usable area of the property is approximately $3,455/m².
[36]
Mr Elliott valued the Whispering Winds site at $1,950,000 or $3,672/m².
[37]
Before considering Mr Elliott’s sales in detail, it is necessary to make a general comment about his written reports which were received into evidence as Exhibits 2 and 3. Mr Elliott did not disclose in the reports the values that had been applied to each of the sales properties. In some cases at least, Mr Elliott said, this was because the values applied to the sales properties were concessional, that is the property had been valued as a single dwelling house under s 47 of the Act with the result that, under s 46(1), any enhancement in its value because of a potential use for subdivisional or any other purpose was to be disregarded. Nevertheless, the applied values are important information because it is the applied values, rather than the analyzed values of sales, which are to be used for the purposes of determining the unimproved or site values of land. This is because the Land Appeal Court said in Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources v Radlett Enterprises Pty Ltd^[7], it is desirable, when valuing all land within a particular local government area, that the valuations should proceed on the basis of the values applied to the sales properties.
[38]
Mr Elliott relied on seven sales of what he described as unimproved or lightly improved properties for his valuations of both subject properties.
[39]
Sale 1 is a 521 m² property situated at 289A Golden Four Drive, Bilinga, which sold on 28 October 2012 for $2,000,000 or $3,839/m². The site is near level beachfront, rectangular in shape with easement access from Golden Four Drive. The property is improved with what Mr Elliott described as an older style early 1970’s two level brick dwelling in original condition. He allowed $100,000 for the value of the building and thus analyzed the sale to $1,900,000 or $3,647/m². This gives a rate per metre of beach frontage of $112,360. Mr Elliott considered his analysis of Sale 1 to be conservative.
[40]
Mr Elliott also considered that the value he had adopted for the improvements was generous. He had determined that value by comparison with the sale of the adjoining property (Sale 2 at 291 Golden Four Drive) where the improvements were demolished post sale.
[41]
It appears from Mr Elliott’s oral evidence that the value applied to 289A Golden Four Drive was $1,600,000 or $3,071/m² but that the property had been valued as a single dwelling house under ss 46 and 47 of the Act. Mr Elliot said that if those provisions had not applied, a value of $1,800,000 ($3,455/m²) would have been applied to the sale property.
[42]
Mr Elliott said that, as compared with Wendall Court, the sale property was a similar sized and shaped rear allotment with a smaller inferior frontage. He considered it to be comparable on an overall basis to Wendall Court and comparable on a net rate per square metre basis. Wendall Court should have an overall value of at least $1,800,000, he said. Mr Elliott also said that the sale is a key sale which supported the value adopted and, he suggested, the value of the subject should be in excess of that adopted.
[43]
Mr Elliott said that in comparison with Whispering Winds the sale was a similar sized rear (non-corner) allotment, but the sale was inferior in shape and access. The sale was inferior on a rate per square metre basis and had an inferior corridor/ocean outlook, he said. Overall Mr Elliott considered the sale to be inferior to Whispering Winds.
[44]
Mr Elliott said that Whispering Winds should carry a higher rate per square metre than the sale given the rear nature of the sale property and the fact that Whispering Winds has a superior sort after corner position. Whispering Winds should have an overall value in excess of $1,900,000 when compared to the sale. Mr Elliott said that Sale 1 was a key sale supporting the value adopted.
[45]
Mr Elliott compared sales of two adjoining allotments at Hedges Avenue, Mermaid Beach to demonstrate that a corner allotment attracts a premium price as compared with an inside allotment. While the evidence is limited to one paired transaction, I accept that the analysis shows that the corner allotment in that comparison attracted a premium of 11.5%. Mr Bentley also accepted that a corner site is more valuable than an inside allotment.
[46]
Mr Bentley included the property at 289A Golden Four Drive in his spreadsheet. He estimated the building value at $300,000 describing the improvements as a 2 storey brick house (1980-1990) but in good shape with 5 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and a 2 car garage. Mr Bentley analyzed the sale to a site value of $1,700,000 or $3,263/m².
[47]
Sale 2 is situated at 291 Golden Four Drive, Bilinga. The property adjoins Sale 1. The sale comprised two lots with a total area of 1,048 m² and sold on 16 March 2011 for $3,300,000 or $3,150/m². The improvements were demolished post sale and the site redeveloped. Mr Elliott added $50,000 demolition costs to the $3,250,000 sale price to reach an analyzed value of $3,300,000 for the vacant site. Given the date of the sale, the analyzed value was then adjusted by a 15% reduction (which was applied to all multi-unit sites in the relevant market area for the valuation as at 1 October 2012 ($3,300,000 × .85)) to reach a value of $2,800,000 or $2,670/m². The site has absolute beach frontage of 16 m so that the adjusted analyzed rate per metre of beach frontage is $175,000. Mr Elliott’s oral evidence was that the value applied to this property as at 1 October 2012 was $2,300,000 or $2,195/m²
[48]
Mr Elliott said that the sale was a larger allotment although a deeper site with smaller frontage, as compared with Wendall Court. The sale had an inferior frontage to depth ratio and was inferior on a rate per square metre basis due to its larger land area and larger area of rear land. Overall however the sale was superior to Wendall Court.
[49]
Mr Elliott said that Wendall Court should carry a significantly higher rate per square metre than $2,670 given the subject’s smaller land area and superior frontage to depth ratio. The overall rate per square metre for the sale property was reduced because at least half of the site was effectively rear land which carried a reduced value compared with the prime ocean front component.
[50]
This reduced rate was clearly demonstrated, Mr Elliott said, when the price of the sale property was adjusted for market movement and compared with the adjoining property (Sale 1, 289A Golden Four Drive). Mr Elliott said that on a like for like basis the analyzed value of the sale at $2,800,000 could be notionally broken into at least $2,000,000 to $2,200,000 ($3,846/m² to $4,230/m²) for the front 520 m², with the balance rear land, say 528 m², in the order of $600,000 ($1,136/m²) to $800,000 ($1,515/m²). Wendall Court should have an overall value below $2,800,000. Mr Elliott considered that the sale supported the value adopted.
[51]
Mr Elliott noted that the sale was a larger deeper inside non-corner site as compared with Whispering Winds. The sale was inferior to Whispering Winds on a rate per square metre basis because the sale was larger with more rear land. The sale had higher development potential and was superior overall to Whispering Winds.
[52]
Mr Elliott said that Whispering Winds should carry a significantly higher rate per square metre than the sale given Whispering Winds’ smaller land area, superior frontage to depth ratio and the fact that Whispering Winds is on a superior sought after corner position. The overall rate per square metre for the sale property was reduced because at least half of the site was, effectively, rear land. Whispering Winds should have an overall value below $2,800,000. Mr Elliott considered that the sale was supportive of the value adopted.
[53]
Mr Bentley did not deal with this sale in his spreadsheet.
[54]
Sale 3 is a 976 m² property situated at 325 Golden Four Drive, Tugun. At the time of sale the property was vacant. The property sold on 8 April 2013 for $2,600,000 or $2,664/m². Although the sale post-dated the date of valuation, Mr Elliott said, and Mr Bentley agreed, that the sale was indicative of market levels prevailing as at 1 October 2012. He described the sale property as a vacant near level allotment with 20 metre absolute beach frontage. The sale price reflects a rate per metre of beach frontage of $130,000. Mr Elliott applied a value of $2,300,000 or $2,357/m² to the sale property.
[55]
As compared with Wendall Court, Mr Elliott described the sale as a larger allotment although a deeper lot, with an inferior frontage to depth ratio. The sale was inferior on a rate per square metre basis due to its larger land area and more rear land but was superior overall to Wendall Court.
[56]
Mr Elliott said that Wendall Court should carry a significantly higher rate per square metre than $2,664 given Wendall Court’s smaller land area and superior frontage to depth ratio. The overall rate per square metre for the sale property was reduced because at least half of the site was effectively rear land which carried a reduced value compared with the prime ocean front component. Mr Elliott said that Wendall Court should have an overall value below $2,600,000. He considered that the sale supported the value adopted.
[57]
Mr Elliott also considered the sale to be superior overall to Whispering Winds for essentially the same reasons as he had given in relation to Wendall Court. He added that the sale property was a deeper inside non-corner lot.
[58]
Mr Elliott said that Whispering Winds should carry a significantly higher rate per square metre than $2,664 for the same reasons as he had given in relation to Wendall Court with the addition of the fact that Whispering Winds has a superior sought after corner position. Whispering Winds should have an overall value below $2,600,000. Mr Elliott said that the sale supported the value adopted.
[59]
Mr Bentley analyzed the sale to the same figure as Mr Elliott.
[60]
Sale 4 is a 700 m² property situated at 51 O'Connor Street, Tugun. The property sold on 9 April 2013 for $1,950,000. At the time of sale the property was improved with a basic older style weatherboard dwelling with inbuilt single carport. Mr Elliott described the property as lightly improved and attributed a value of $30,000 to the improvements thus analyzing the sale to $1,920,000 or $2,743/m². The analyzed rate per metre of esplanade frontage is $1,013,030. Sections 46 and 47 of the Act were applicable in determining the value to be applied to the sale property. Mr Elliott said that if those provisions had not applied, the sale would have been applied at $1,750,000 or $2,500/m².
[61]
Mr Elliott described the property as a level near beachfront allotment with a concrete boardwalk separating the property from ocean frontage. The access from O'Connor Street was somewhat restricted with no off street parking available to the property. As compared with Wendall Court, Mr Elliott said that the sale property was a larger inside allotment which fronted the esplanade rather than enjoying an absolute beachfront position. The sale was inferior to Wendall Court on a net rate per square metre due to the sale’s larger area and more rear land, and frontage to depth ratio basis. The sale property was affected by more restrictive town planning provisions and there was inferior access to the sale. However the sale was superior overall to Wendall Court.
[62]
Mr Elliott said that Wendall Court should carry a significantly higher rate per square metre than the $2,743 shown by the sale because of Wendall Court’s smaller land area, superior frontage to depth ratio and the fact that the sale property does not have absolute ocean frontage. He considered that Wendall Court should have an overall value at or slightly below $1,920,000. Mr Elliott considered that the sale supported the value adopted for Wendall Court.
[63]
As compared with Whispering Winds, Mr Elliott said that Sale 4 was a larger inside (near corner) allotment with esplanade rather than absolute beach frontage. The sale was inferior to Whispering Winds on a rate per square metre basis because of the sale’s larger area, more rear land and frontage to depth ratio. The sale was subject to more restrictive town planning provisions than Whispering Winds. Overall, Mr Elliott considered the sale to be inferior to Whispering Winds.
[64]
Mr Elliott said that Whispering Winds should carry a significantly higher rate per square metre than the $2,743 shown by the sale for essentially the same reasons as he had given in relation to Wendall Court, with the addition of the fact that Whispering Winds has a superior sought after corner position. In his opinion Whispering Winds should have an overall value in excess of $1,920,000. Mr Elliott said that the sale supported the value adopted for Whispering Winds.
[65]
Although Mr Bentley did provide a breakdown of the analysis of the sale of the property at 51 O'Connor Street, he said in his oral evidence that he disregarded the property because the sale took place in May 2013, after the date of valuation.
[66]
Sale 5 is a 425 m² property situated at 602 Pacific Parade, Tugun. The property sold on 12 September 2012 for $1,650,000. There is a boardwalk/esplanade between the subject and the ocean front. Mr Elliott said that there was no vehicular access via the esplanade in front of the property. Vehicular access was available from Elizabeth Street.
[67]
At the time of sale the property was improved with an older style two level part weatherboard part brick dwelling which, Mr Elliott said, added value of approximately $200,000 to the site. Accordingly he analyzed the sale to $1,450,000 or $3,412/m², or $160,959 per metre of beach frontage.
[68]
The sale was applied pursuant to ss 46 and 47 of the Act at $1,350,000 or $3,176/m². Mr Elliott said that if ss 46 and 47 had not applied, the property would have been valued at $1,450,000 or $3,412/m².
[69]
As compared with Wendall Court, Mr Elliott said that the sale is a smaller allotment with a narrow 9m esplanade frontage. It had an inferior frontage to depth ratio, inferior access and was inferior to Wendall Court on a quantum value basis. The sale was comparable with Wendall Court on a net rate per square metre basis. The sale had limited development potential and more restrictive town planning provisions were in place. Overall he considered the sale to be inferior to Wendall Court.
[70]
Mr Elliott said that Wendall Court should carry a similar rate to the sale rate of $3,412/m² despite the larger land area of Wendall Court. This was because Wendall Court had a far superior frontage to depth ratio and absolute beach frontage. The sale property was limited in development potential to either a single detached dwelling or duplex at best. He considered that the subject should have an overall value well in excess of $1,450,000. Mr Elliott said that the sale supported the value adopted for the subject.
[71]
Mr Elliott applied the same remarks in his comparison with Whispering Winds. He said however that the sale was far inferior, overall, to Whispering Winds which had a far superior frontage to depth ratio and a superior sought after corner position.
[72]
Mr Bentley did not deal with Sale 5 in his spreadsheet.
[73]
Sale 6 is a 597 m² property situated at 67 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach. The site area is effectively reduced by approximately 120 m² due to the effect of the ocean seawall line. The property was sold by a mortgagee in possession for $1,652,500 on 2 June 2012. At the time of sale the property was vacant and accordingly Mr Elliott analyzed the sale to $1,652,500 or $2,768/m². He said that this reflected an effective rate of $3,464/m² for the balance land inside the ocean seawall line. The sale price reflects a rate per metre of beach frontage of $165,250. Mr Elliott applied the sale at $1,650,000.
[74]
Mr Elliott described the property as a rectangular shaped absolute beachfront site (with 10 m beach frontage) located at Jefferson Lane road height, and rising to rear ocean front boundary. The property was sold at auction under instruction from receivers and has been developed post-sale with a detached two-level dwelling.
[75]
Mr Elliott said that the sale allotment was smaller and narrower than Wendall Court. The sale was comparable with Wendall Court on a net rate per square metre basis but the sale had inferior frontage to depth ratio and inferior access. The sale is a sloping site with its highest and best use being only for a detached dwelling or duplex (impact assessable). Mr Elliott considered the sale to be inferior overall to Wendall Court.
[76]
Mr Elliott said that Wendall Court should carry a slightly lower rate than the $3,882/m² shown by the sale, because of the sale’s smaller land area and superior locality. The rate of $3,882/m² appears to be a typographical error in Mr Elliott’s report. As set out above the effective rate is $3,464/m². Wendall Court has a superior frontage to depth ratio that offsets the locational differences. The sloping nature of the sale property is not as attractive as the near level nature of Wendall Court. Wendall Court should have an overall value in excess of $1,650,000. Mr Elliott said that the sale supported the value adopted.
[77]
As compared with Whispering Winds, Mr Elliott said that the sale was an inferior inside (non-corner allotment). The sale was inferior to Whispering Winds on a rate per square metre and a frontage to depth ratio basis. The sale was a sloping site with inferior access but was located in a superior suburb. The sale had limited development potential and Mr Elliott considered it to be inferior overall to Whispering Winds.
[78]
Otherwise, Mr Elliott’s comments as to the comparison between the sale and Wendall Court were largely repeated in his comparison with Whispering Winds and it is unnecessary to set those details out again, other than to note that Whispering Winds has a superior corner position which Mr Elliott considered offset the locational differences between the sites.
[79]
Mr Bentley did not deal with this sale in his spreadsheet. However Mr Bentley did submit that Mr Elliott’s sales properties at Palm Beach (Sales 6 and 7) were not comparable with the subjects because those sales may not recognize the impacts on building height restrictions and amenity resulting from the proximity of the subject properties to the Coolangatta Airport, nor the proximity to facilities and commercial hubs.
[80]
Sale 7 is a 1,199 m² property situated at 51 and 51A Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach which sold on 2 November 2012 for $3,625,000 or $3,023/m². The site area is effectively reduced by approximately 58 m² due to the impact of the ocean seawall line. The property was vacant at the time of sale and therefore Mr Elliott’s analyzed rate was the same as the sale price. This equates to an effective rate of $3,177/m² if the area beyond the seawall line is not included. The rate per square metre of beach frontage is $181,250.
[81]
Mr Elliott said that the sale had not been applied. He also said that the property had been purchased by an adjoining owner, the owner of 49 Jefferson Lane. The sale property consists of two lots of 599 m² each and, Mr Elliott said, the purchaser intends to develop a new detached dwelling over both lots and then sell the older dwelling at 49 Jefferson Lane.
[82]
Mr Elliott said that, as compared with Wendall Court, the sale property has an inferior frontage to depth ratio. The sale has a slightly sloping site which restricts ocean front development, and inferior access. The sale is inferior on a net rate per square metre basis, but is superior to Wendall Court on an overall value basis.
[83]
Mr Elliott considered that Wendall Court should carry a significantly higher net rate than the sale rate of $3,177/m² because of the substantially smaller effective land area of Wendall Court. The superior location of the sale is offset by the superior frontage to depth ratio of Wendall Court. The overall rate per square metre for the sale was reduced due to at least half the site being effectively rear land. Wendall Court should have an overall value well below $3,625,500. Mr Elliott considered that the sale supported the value adopted for Wendall Court.
[84]
Mr Elliott’s comparison with Whispering Winds was generally the same as his comparison with Wendall Court and it is unnecessary to repeat that other than to note that Mr Elliott added that Whispering Winds is a corner site.
[85]
Mr Bentley did not deal with this sale in his spreadsheet.

Sale at 232 Pacific Parade, Bilinga

[86]
Mr Bentley also included the sale at 232 Pacific Parade, Bilinga in his spreadsheet. It appears that at the time of sale the property was improved with a simple fibro house on 506 m², and therefore, the property might be described as lightly improved. Uninterrupted ocean views were available from the property but the property has a frontage to Pacific Parade, Mr Bentley said. The property was sold on 13 June 2012 for $1,300,000. Mr Bentley estimated the value of the building to be $200,000 and thus he analyzed the sale to $1,100,000 or $2,174/m². He said that the sale had an applied value of $2,668/m².
[87]
Mr Elliott said that in his experience absolute beachfront land commanded higher prices than properties such as this sale, where there was a road between the property and the beach.

Other matters

[88]
Mr Bentley also referred, in the notices of appeal and in his evidence, to the fact that the Gold Coast City Council has taken steps to reinstate Pacific Parade which is an unmade road or pathway running north south in front of the subject and other beach front properties. Mr Bentley said that protestors are walking every day along the front of the subject properties, which represents a loss of security and privacy.
[89]
While I accept Mr Bentley’s account of these activities, he has not established that the values of the subject properties have been adversely affected by the activities and if so, to what extent. In any event, it seems likely that any detrimental effect would also apply to the relevant sales properties and it would therefore be reflected in the prices paid.
[90]
Mr Bentley also produced a photograph showing a house on the northern side of Wendall Court, where the patio has been extended to the front which blocks the views north from the balcony of his unit in Wendall Court. I accept that this building may have adversely affected the value of Wendall Court as it stands but, it is to be remembered that the Wendall Court site is to be valued on the assumption that the existing building had not been made. There was no evidence as to how, if at all, the patio might impact on the site value of the Wendall Court land. In those circumstances I am unable to make any allowance for this matter.

Consideration of sales evidence

[91]
Sale 1 is Mr Elliott’s key sale and Mr Bentley also recognized that it was a relevant sale. The sale is located in close proximity to Wendall Court, and the usable area of Wendall Court at 521 m² (that is, less the handle of the hatchet) is the same as the area of Sale 1. Both are inside allotments and I have, therefore, accepted Mr Elliott’s evidence that this sale and Wendall Court are, overall, comparable.
[92]
I have also accepted Mr Elliott’s evidence that the sale property is overall inferior to Whispering Winds because of the latter’s corner position and superior shape. Therefore Whispering Winds should have a value higher than the value applied to Sale 1.
[93]
There is a difference between Mr Elliott and Mr Bentley as to the assessment of the value of the improvements on the sale property. Mr Bentley estimated their value at $300,000. Mr Elliott estimated the value of the improvements by comparison with the sale of a property next door (Sale 2) where the improvements had been demolished post sale. On that basis Mr Elliott valued the improvements on Sale 1 at $100,000 which he described as generous. Sale 2 was transacted in March 2011 some 18 months before the date of valuation and, as discussed further below, I do not consider that it provides reliable evidence of the subject’s value as at 1 October 2012. It may be, therefore, that use of Sale 2 as a comparison for the purposes of valuing the improvements on Sale 1 is not appropriate given the date of Sale 2. Nevertheless Mr Elliott is a valuer and I accept his expertise as such. He demonstrated some knowledge of the building and was thus in a position to assess the added value of the improvements. In the absence of any evidence from Mr Bentley supporting his estimate of the value of the improvements, I have accepted Mr Elliott’s opinion as to their value. It follows that I also accept Mr Elliott’s analysis of the sale and his evidence that, in the absence of ss 46 and 47 of the Act, the sale would have been applied at $3,455/m².
[94]
My conclusion is that Sale 1 provides strong evidence in support of the respondent’s valuation of both Wendall Court and Whispering Winds.
[95]
As set out above, Mr Elliott’s Sale 2 took place in March 2011, some 18 months before the date of valuation. I do not consider that the sale should be relied on for the subject valuations given the length of time between the sale and the valuation date. If there were no other relevant sales available, then an older sale may be of assistance. That is not the case here. Further, Mr Elliott accepted that there had been changes in the market between the two dates and sought to allow for that by adjusting the analyzed value of the sale by 15%. In my opinion that is not an appropriate way to allow for market changes. In Liat Nominees Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands^[8] the then President said:

“It is well established that a valuer must accept the actual sale price of a property which he intends to use as the basis for the valuation of another property.

As Pike J of the NSW Land and Valuation Court said in re Collins (1936) Vol IV The Valuer 156:

You cannot take a sale at a price, and say, ‘That was the sale price, but in my opinion it is not the correct price; I am going to alter the price paid by this particular purchaser’. If that is done in the analysis of sales, one might just as well reject the whole of those sales, and simply say what is the witnesses’ opinion of the land to be valued.”

[96]
Sales 3 and 4 are after date sales but Mr Elliott’s evidence, which was not challenged and which I have accepted, was that the sales were indicative of market levels prevailing as at 1 October 2012.
[97]
A number of comments may be made about Mr Elliott’s analysis of Sale 3. The first is that Mr Elliott said that both Wendall Court and Whispering Winds should carry a higher rate than the sale price of $2,664 m². However, as discussed above, the proper comparison to be made is with the value applied to the sale, that is $2,357 m². Mr Elliott’s evidence of comparison with the sale price suggests that he may have applied a higher rate to the subject than warranted but the evidence was not conclusive in that regard.
[98]
The second observation to be made is that this sale at 976 m², and Sale 7 (1,199 m²) are considerably larger than the subjects. Mr Bentley said that smaller parcels have restricted development opportunities as compared with the larger full blocks. This is particularly important for car parking and servicing requirements and the achievement of site setbacks. In other words, he said, development potential is not simply proportional to a parcel’s size. I have accepted Mr Bentley’s evidence in this regard.
[99]
The third matter to note is that, in comparing this sale and a number of other sales with the subjects, Mr Elliott said that the rear land in the sale parcel was inferior in value to the beachfront component of that land. As discussed above in the context of the relativity issue, Mr Bentley contested that this was the case, at least in cases where the rear land adjoined a side street which thus provided uninterrupted sight lines from the rear block to the ocean.
[100]
Mr Elliott relied on Sale 1 to demonstrate the value of oceanfront land. Sale 1 analyzed to $3,647/m². Sale 3 analyzed to $2,664 m². Mr Elliott said, and I accept, that larger properties show a lower rate per square metre than smaller ones. However, even when such an allowance is made, I am satisfied that a comparison between Sale 1 and Sale 3 shows that the rear portion of Sale 3 is of less value than the front portion. I have, therefore, accepted Mr Elliott’s opinion that the inclusion of rear land in a sale property is a relevant factor to be taken into account in comparing the sale with the subjects.
[101]
Despite my reservations about whether Mr Elliott compared the subjects with the analyzed sale price rather than the value applied to the sale, I have accepted that this sale provides relevant evidence for valuing the subjects. I have accepted Mr Elliott’s comparisons between the sale and subjects and have concluded that the sale supports the valuations applied to the subjects as outlined by Mr Elliott.
[102]
Sale 4 is also relevant to the subject valuations. I have accepted Mr Elliott’s opinion that the sale is inferior to both Wendall Court and Whispering Winds on a rate per square metre basis due to the larger area of the sale, its larger component of rear land, more restrictive town planning and inferior access.
[103]
Sale 5, said Mr Elliott, was comparable to Wendall Court on a net rate per square metre basis. It was inferior to Whispering Winds on a rate per square metre basis. I have accepted Mr Elliott’s conclusions for the reasons set out in the summary of his analysis above.
[104]
Sales 6 and 7 are located at Palm Beach which both parties accepted was a superior area to Bilinga and Tugun where the subject properties are located. While Mr Elliott attempted to allow for the superior location of the sales, he did not say how he had dealt with the issues raised by Mr Bentley, that is the impact of Coolangatta Airport on the amenity and allowable building heights in the area where the subject properties are situated. In those circumstances I consider that less weight should be placed on these sales, than on Sales 1, 3, 4 and 5.
[105]
Mr Bentley’s sale at 232 Pacific Parade, Bilinga appears to be anomalous when compared with the sales discussed above. Mr Bentley analyzed the sale to $2,174/m² yet the applied value is $2,668/m² which, Mr Elliott said, was a concessional value but, he also said, the concession was not significant in that particular location. Further the analyzed value of this sale is considerably lower than the analyzed value of Sale 5, 602 Pacific Parade, Tugun at $3,412/m². Both properties have narrow frontages (10m and 9m respectively) to the esplanade. There was very little evidence about 232 Pacific Parade. Given the anomalies, I am not disposed to rely on the sale because, if the above information is correct, the sale appears to be out of line with the market.
[106]
On the basis of Mr Elliott’s Sale 1 in particular and the supporting evidence of Sales 3, 4 and 5, I consider the valuations of both Wendall Court and Whispering Winds are correct. Accordingly, the appeals should be dismissed.

ORDERS

Appeal LVA361-13 is dismissed.
The site value of Lots 1 – 4 on BUP 689 in the County of Ward, Parish of Tallebudgera, as at 1 October 2012, is affirmed at One Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000).
Appeal LVA363-13 is dismissed.
The site value of Lots 1 – 4 on BUP 625 in the County of Ward, Parish of Tallebudgera, as at 1 October 2012, is affirmed at One Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,950,000).

CAC MacDONALD

PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT

Footnotes

[1] Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378 at 381; Barnwell v Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 13 at 17; Grahn v Valuer-General (1992-93) 14 QLCR 327 at 328.

[2] (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70 at 76.

[3] Gatfield v Valuer-General [2013] QLC 55 at [23].

[4] R and MM Barnwell v Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 13 at 16.

[5] WM and T Fisher v Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44 at 46.

[6] Ladies Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee [1932] 2 KB 679 at 688, cited with approval by the Land Appeal Court in R and MM Barnwell v Valuer-General (1990-91) 13 QLCR 13 at 17.

[7] (1997-98) 18 QLCR 397 at 404. See also Musumeci v Valuer-General [2014] QLC 15 at [10] – [15].

[8] (1996-1997) 16 QLCR 687 at 706.

Editorial Notes

Published Case Name:
Body Corporate for Wendall Court & Anor v Valuer-General
Shortened Case Name:
Body Corporate for Wendall Court Community Titles Scheme 14392 v Valuer-General
MNC:
[2015] QLC 16
Court:
QLC
Judge(s):
MacDonald P
Date:
12 Jun 2015

Appeal Status

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

Cases Cited List of Cases Cited by this judgment

Case Name	Full Citation	Frequency
Barnwell v Valuer General	(1991) 13 QLCR 13	4 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1991) 13 QLCR 13 Cite 2 - (1991) 13 QLCR 13 Cite 3 - (1991) 13 QLCR 13 Cite 4 - (1991) 13 QLCR 13
Clough v Valuer-General	(1982) 8 QLCR 70	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1982) 8 QLCR 70 Cite 2 - (1982) 8 QLCR 70
Department of Natural Resources v Radlett Enterprises Pty Ltd	(1998) 18 QLCR 397	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1998) 18 QLCR 397 Cite 2 - (1998) 18 QLCR 397
Gatfield v Valuer-General	[2013] QLC 55	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2013] QLC 55 Cite 2 - [2013] QLC 55
Hans and Else Grahn v Valuer General	(1993) 14 QLCR 327	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1993) 14 QLCR 327 Cite 2 - (1993) 14 QLCR 327
Ladies Hosiery and Underwear Ltd. v West Middlesex Assessment Committee	View on:ICLRUK(1932) 2 KB 679	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1932) 2 KB 679 Cite 2 - (1932) 2 KB 679
Liat Nominees Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Lands	(1997) 16 QLCR 687	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1997) 16 QLCR 687 Cite 2 - (1997) 16 QLCR 687
Musumeci v Valuer-General	[2014] QLC 15	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2014] QLC 15 Cite 2 - [2014] QLC 15
NR and PT Tow v The Valuer-General Redland Shire	(1978) 5 QLCR 378	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1978) 5 QLCR 378 Cite 2 - (1978) 5 QLCR 378
WM and TJ Fischer v The Valuer-General	(1983) 9 QLCR 44	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1983) 9 QLCR 44 Cite 2 - (1983) 9 QLCR 44

Cases Citing List of cases on Queensland Judgments citing this Judgment

Case Name	Full Citation	Frequency
Aria Securities Pty Ltd v Valuer-General	[2018] QLC 2	2 citations
BWP Management Ltd v Valuer-General (No 2)	[2018] QLC 30	2 citations
F A Pidgeon & Son Pty Ltd v Valuer-General	[2019] QLC 25	1 citation
O'Connor v Valuer-General	[2016] QLC 44	1 citation
The Trust Company Limited v Valuer-General	[2017] QLC 25	2 citations
Tseng v Valuer-General	[2018] QLC 42	2 citations

Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

Change Font and Font Size

Body Corporate for Wendall Court Community Titles Scheme 14392 v Valuer-General[2015] QLC 16