Tait v Valuer-General[2015] QLC 37

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Background

1. [1]
   This is the decision in respect of land located at 131 Sunday Plains Road, Mount Colliery and otherwise described as Lot 137 on Crown Plan M341135, County of Merivale, Parish of Emu Vale.  The subject land is about 7 km north-east of the small township of Killarney and 32 km east of the major urban area of Warwick City.  It has an area 72.84 ha.
2. [2]
   The valuation appealed against was made as at 1 October 2011, effective from 30 June 2012. 
3. [3]
   The valuation issued by the Valuer-General in the first instance was $295,000. 
4. [4]
   That valuation was objected to by Mr Tait but the objection was disallowed.
5. [5]
   At this appeal Mr Tait contends that the land ought be valued at a figure of $170,000.
6. [6]
   In his notice of appeal Mr Tait identifies the following grounds of appeal:

“The Department has erred in arriving at its decision on the valuation of the land by not properly taking into account the physical features of the land, accessibility to the land and insufficient note of other lands and comparable sales.  Although the land has a surveyed area of 72.84 ha, only approximately 2ha of the land is usable with the balance of the land being escarpment or cliff face.  The land can only be accessed by an 8 km gravel road, through undulating country and scrub.  Although the land commands good views, it is not suitable for any form of high intensity tourist facility and no other land in the vicinity has been developed in that way.  There are no services available to the land such [as] town water, sewerage, electricity or garbage collection.

A nearby parcel of land being Lot 143 on M341087 is the only sale in the vicinity and which sold on 9 July 2010 for $230,000.  This land is larger in size being 127.5 ha but like the subject land only has a small useable area and being mostly escarpment and cliff face.  This land was valued on 30 June 2011 and again on 30 June 2012 for $185,000.  Some valuations of land in other nearby valleys are as follows:-

Lot 59 on M 341230 Parish of Emu Vale $197,500 – 60.91 ha

Lot 143 on M 341087 Parish of Cunningham $167,500 – 127.5 ha

Lot 1 on RP 18305 Parish of Emu Vale $108,000 – 11.5 ha

Lot 2 on RP 134605 Parish of Killarney $260,000 – 86.86 ha

Lot 1987 on M34776 Parish of Cunningham $245,000 – 64.75 ha

Lot 160 on ML 2061 Parish of Killarney $162,500 – 52.97 ha.”

Legislative provisions

7. [7]
   This appeal is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Land Valuation Act 2010 (LVA).
8. [8]
   The LVA made a number of significant changes to the valuation process which had previously been carried out pursuant to the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA).
9. [9]
   The LVA retains an obligation upon the Valuer-General to carry out a valuation of all properties throughout Queensland for the purpose of rating, land tax and other associated purposes. 
10. [10]
    The respondent is required to comply in its conduct with the requirements of the Land Valuation Act when undertaking various valuations required. 
11. [11]
    The LVA has brought about a change to the valuation approach insofar as under the previous Act, the Valuation of Land Act, all valuations were of unimproved value but now under the LVA valuations are broken into two categories:  non-rural land which embraces residential, commercial and industrial land on the one hand and rural land on the other. 
12. [12]
    Pursuant to the provisions of the LVA, the value of land to be valued by the respondent is in the case of non-rural land its site value which term is defined in the Act, and for rural land, its unimproved value.^[1] 
13. [13]
    The Land Valuation Act also draws a distinction between the unimproved value of improved land (Chapter 2, Part 2, Subdivision 4) and the value of unimproved land (Chapter 2, Part 2, Subdivision 5).
14. [14]
    Section 26 of the LVA provides a meaning for the “unimproved value of improved land” in the following terms: 

“26 What is the unimproved value of improved land

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

 (2) However, the land’s unimproved value is affected by any other relevant provisions of this chapter.”

15. [15]
    Similarly, s 29 provides a meaning for the value of unimproved value in the following terms:

“29 What is the site value and unimproved value of unimproved land

If land is unimproved, both its site value and its unimproved value are its expected realisation under a bona fide sale.”

16. [16]
    The Dictionary in Schedule 2 to the LVA defines “unimproved” as:

“means land in its natural state.”

17. [17]
    In the present case the valuation exercise which must necessarily be conducted is one which calls for the determination of the unimproved value of improved land, that is assuming that all site and non-site improvements do not exist.
18. [18]
    In the Lawson decision, footnoted above, His Honour Mr Smith referred to a decision^[2] of His Honour Mr Isdale in Steers v Valuer-General^[3] where His Honour was obliged to consider the valuation of land pursuant to the LVA.
19. [19]
    His Honour Mr Isdale said:

“[8] The use of sales to provide comparisons of value is well established. In NR and PG Tow v Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 378, the Land Appeal Court constituted by Stable SPJ, Mr Smith and Mr Carter said at page 381:

“Courts of the highest authority have laid down that the best test of value is to be found in the sales of comparable properties, preferably unimproved, on the open market round about the relevant date of valuation and between prudent and willing, but not over-anxious parties.”

[9] This Court is required to follow the decisions of the Land Appeal Court and accordingly must prefer the evidence of comparable sales to the method contended for by the appellant, simply increasing a previous value by a factor of 10. Mr Steers did not explain why this particular multiplier and not some other one should be applied.”

20. [20]
    His Honour Mr Smith in Lawson then said:^[4]

“[14] I consider it remains a relevant feature under the LVA, to consider market value. As then President Trickett said in Fairfax v. Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

[11] The principles for determination of the ‘market value’ of land were established by the High Court in Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418. In that case, the High Court found that the value of land is determined by the price that a willing but not over-anxious buyer would pay to a willing but not over-anxious seller, both of whom are aware of all the circumstances which might affect the value of the land, either advantageously or prejudicially, including its situation, character, quality, proximity to conveniences or inconveniences, its surrounding facilities, the then present demand for land and the likelihood of a rise or fall in the value of a property. (See Griffith CJ at 432 and Isaacs J at 441).

[12] It has been well established that the unimproved value of land is ascertained by reference to prices that have been paid for similar parcels of land in Waterhouse v The Valuer-General (1927) 8 LGR (NSW) 137 at 139, Pike J said that:

 ‘Land in my opinion differs in no way from any other commodity. It certainly is more difficult to ascertain the market value of it but-as with other commodities-the best way to ascertain the market value is by finding what lands comparable to the subject land were bringing in the market on the relevant date-and that is evidenced by sales.”

[15] Despite the legislative change, it is refreshing that the views expressed by the High Court in Spencer, now well over a century ago, remain just as current and relevant today as they did when they were first uttered. It is certainly my view, at least at this stage until other authorities may prove me wrong, to continue to apply the Spencer test under the LVA.”

21. [21]
    In addition to the changes with respect to the valuation process, the regime established by the Land Valuation Act also brings a change in the evidentiary onus.
22. [22]
    Under s 3 of the Valuation of Land Act the valuation made by the Valuer-General was deemed to be correct unless proved otherwise either upon objection or appeal.  That is to say there was a presumption of correctness in favour of the valuation contended for by the Valuer-General.
23. [23]
    The Land Valuation Act does not retain that evidentiary provision but rather provides at s 169(3):

“However, the appellant has the onus of proof for each of the grounds of appeal.”

24. [24]
    The only grounds of appeal which are able to be contemplated at a hearing are those grounds stated in the valuation appeal notice.^[5] 
25. [25]
    Accordingly, Mr Tait is limited to those matters which are recited in the notice of appeal.  Those matters are set out above.

The Witnesses

26. [26]
    Mr Tait did not engage a valuer to provide a valuation report.  He did however file in Court a detailed statement to which was appended information about comparable sales and valuations, some plans and aerial photographs and other relevant documentation.^[6]
27. [27]
    I have commented previously on the difficulties confronted by self-represented parties to an appeal against a valuation of the Valuer-General, in circumstances where they elect not to engage the services of an appropriately qualified and experienced valuer and have to confront the evidence which, inevitably, is adduced by the Valuer-General utilising the services of a qualified and experienced valuer (generally one in the employ of the Valuer-General).^[7]
28. [28]
    As I observed in other cases, comments by other Members of this Court in a similar vein have been made over a long period of time.^[8]
29. [29]
    In the Nimmo case His Honour Mr Jones commented as follows:^[9]

“[16] Assessment of the unimproved value of land is an enterprise considered to be within the province of a recognised area of expertise.  Accordingly, in appeals such as these, a valuer's evidence on matters of opinion relating to his field of expertise would ordinarily be preferred to differing opinions of a lay person.  However, it is quite another thing to say that, because the valuation of land is the issue, the valuer's evidence should automatically be preferred to that of a lay person.

[17] It may be that the valuer's opinion is expressed in a manner or upon bases which are unable to be scrutinised, or otherwise lacks rational explanation.  It may also be shown that in reaching his opinion the valuer has relied on information shown to be wrong or has failed to take into account relevant and material facts.

[18] Accordingly, it is clear, in my view, that the opinions of value expressed by Mr Van Hees are not immune from challenge by the appellant.  That said, in the absence of any demonstrated error of approach or reasoning on the part of Mr Van Hees, his opinions on matters within his field of expertise ought to be preferred to the opinions of the appellant on the same matters.”

30. [30]
    That is not to say that the self-represented person’s prospects are entirely forlorn.  There are instances where self-represented parties enjoy considerable success before this Court but it must be noted that the task they set themselves is a difficult one when they are confronted by the dual difficulties of considered expert evidence and the forensic skill of lawyers representing the Valuer-General. 
31. [31]
    Mr Tait gave evidence on his own behalf and was cross-examined by Mr Pepper for the respondent. 
32. [32]
    The evidence of the respondent Valuer-General was given through a report of James Bomford, a registered valuer in the employ of the respondent.  Mr Bomford had prepared a report which was tendered before the Court.^[10]  Mr Bomford also prepared a written response to the statement of Mr Tait that was tendered before the Court,^[11] as was a response by Mr Tait.^[12]
33. [33]
    The Court was greatly assisted by an inspection of the subject property and other properties in the immediate area. 

The Land

34. [34]
    The land is zoned Rural under the Planning Scheme for the Southern Downs Regional Council which was gazetted on 14 August 2012.  I note in passing that that Town Planning Scheme was promulgated at a date some nine months after the date of valuation.  There is however no evidence to suggest that the land has ever been zoned for anything other than a Rural designation. 
35. [35]
    Mr Bomford in his report sets out some details of the access and road network which serve the subject land.  He observes as follows:^[13]

“Access to the property is gained via Gambubal Road for approximately 5.5 kilometres from Mount Colliery in an easterly direction then turning onto Sunday Plains Road where it traverses in a southerly direction for approximately 1.4 kilometres to the appellant’s house.  Both roads consist of dual lane gravel construction with gravel and grass table drains and area both maintained by the Southern Downs Regional Council.  Sunday Plains Road is formed adjoining the north east boundary of the appellant’s land and continues as a gravel track rising in elevation about 20 metres for approximately 250 metres past the appellants [sic] house where it concludes.  The remaining part of Sunday Plains Road is unformed being difficult to ascertain its actual location along its gazetted path down to Condamine River Road.  Access to the subject is all weather and is consistent with similar gravel roads that are maintained by the Southern Downs Regional Council.”

36. [36]
    The land does not have the benefit of any urban services, that is to say there is no water or sewerage or waste collection.  It does have electricity.  It is presently utilised for a rural residential style of dwelling together with some machinery sheds. 
37. [37]
    Mr Tait in his written submission disputes the extent to which the local authority maintains the roads and says that he personally maintains that part of Sunday Plains Road that borders his property in order to create a fire-break.  There is a clear dispute between Mr Bomford and Mr Tait as to how the land ought appropriately be described.  It is, as was clear from the inspection, an elevated block which is partly vegetated.  What is also clear is that a substantial part of the land is steeply sloping and drops away from its western boundary quite sharply.  Mr Bomford in his report described the land in the following terms:

“Overall the subject is considered one of the premium parcels in the Local Government Area with superior physical and geographical features allowing the owner full enjoyment of uninterrupted easterly views over the rainforest / upper Condamine River Head and lesser views to the west over the lower Condamine Valley, with very good access to building platforms with proximity to Killarney Town and Warwick City.”^[14] 

38. [38]
    Mr Tait for his part points out that in his opinion his land is “mainly cliff-face” and although he says that the land is, in the old imperial figures, approximately 180 acres of which only about three to five acres is habitable.  He says it is neither fit for construction nor for agriculture.  He derives no income from the land. 
39. [39]
    The land is not served by reticulated electricity; the nearest power pole, according to Mr Tait, being seven to eight kilometres away and he relies upon solar power.^[15] 
40. [40]
    There are no bores or dams on the property and Mr Tait relies upon rainwater collection which is stored in tanks.  He told the Court that he had expanded the tanks’ storage in order to provide water for fire-fighting purposes and to meet insurance requirements. 
41. [41]
    In his written statement^[16] Mr Tait points to constantly rising valuations namely from $155,000 to $170,000 from 2010 to 2011 and from $170,000 to $295,000 from 2011 to 2012.  He contends that those rising figures have occurred in a market which was otherwise characterised by falling prices. 
42. [42]
    Mr Tait’s overall evidence as to the nature of the land was that he acknowledged the superb views enjoyed out over the Condamine Valley from the home constructed on his site but says that he has fully utilised the scant amount of land suitable for building block on the property.  Properties around his seem to have some rural activity — the nearest property showing signs that it was utilised for beef or dairy production. 
43. [43]
    In his material filed with the Court^[17] Mr Tait drew the Court’s attention to land on the opposite side of the road to his which has an area of 127.5 ha and was therefore about 70% larger than his, and which had an unchanged value from 30 June 2011 to 30 June 2012 of $185,000.  The land had sold in July 2010 for $230,000 in a transaction that was not between related parties. 
44. [44]
    In the earlier part of his oral evidence^[18] Mr Tait seemed to adopt the approach that particular regard should be had to the fact that his local government rates had risen from $1,105 per annum to $2,698 per annum and, as a corollary, argued that the valuation of the land should be reduced so that that reduced valuation could be reflected in the amount of money which he had to pay in local government rates. 
45. [45]
    Associated with that was Mr Tait’s concern that while his rates has risen he did not receive the benefit of anything like sewerage, town water, mains power or garbage collection.^[19] 
46. [46]
    Then later in his evidence having read Mr Bomford’s initial report^[20] he took exception to the notion that Mr Bomford’s assessment contained a reference to the subject land having 360º views and building platforms east through to the Condamine River Gorge.
47. [47]
    Mr Tait rightly took exception to the assertion that, notwithstanding that the subject land clearly has quite expansive panoramic views, it does not have 360º views.
48. [48]
    Mr Tait also took exception to the reference by Mr Bomford to “building platforms”.^[21]
49. [49]
    Upon enquiry from Mr Pepper it was agreed that there was no prospect of there being a subdivision of the land.  The appeal is able to proceed on the basis that the land is not suitable for reconfiguration.^[22]
50. [50]
    Mr Tait’s main points seem to be that it was irrelevant to talk about having more than one potential building site when he was only entitled under the Planning Scheme to construct one dwelling on the subject site. 
51. [51]
    Further, important in Mr Tait’s case was the fact that so much of his land, he said, was unable to be built upon.  He estimated that about 2 ha would be the maximum area upon which building would be able to be constructed and he said that the balance of the land was essentially what he called “cliff face”.^[23]
52. [52]
    With respect to comparable land sites Mr Tait was keen to draw the Court’s attention to property owned by Ms Kelly and Mr Wood otherwise described as Lot 840, Parish of Emu Vale at Sunday Plains Road, Mount Colliery. 
53. [53]
    That property has, as at 30 June 2012, a valuation of $37,000 for its area of 40.46 ha. 
54. [54]
    The RP Data search for that property was exhibited to Mr Tait’s statement and revealed that it was used for cattle breeding and fattening.^[24]
55. [55]
    The land does not presently have a dwelling on it but as was apparent from the inspection it does have some machinery sheds built on it and I have little doubt accepting that it has the potential for a homesite on it.^[25]
56. [56]
    Mr Tait pointed out that the neighbouring land which seemed to be somewhat elevated above his land, would have, dependent upon where one chose to construct a house, the potential for 360º views.
57. [57]
    In respect of the magnitude of the increase in valuation Mr Tait asserted that whereas his land value increase from 2010 to 2011 was of the order of 80%, the general increase in land values in and around Warwick Township was of the order of 6%.^[26] 
58. [58]
    The contention with respect to percentage increases in Warwick was objected to by Mr Pepper on the basis that it wasn’t in any of the statements prepared by Mr Tait and Mr Pepper was not in a position to check the accuracy of that figure.  In the event Mr Tait agreed that he would not seek to rely upon that 6% figure.^[27] 
59. [59]
    In his approach to giving evidence to the Court Mr Tait adopted a position whereby he suggested that the only relevant consideration in the valuation process for his land was having regard to the views available from it. 
60. [60]
    In his evidence-in-chief he said this:

“Well, your Honour, I’ve had the property five years. I’ve got the annual land valuation notice here of 1st of October 2009 that my property was valued at $155,000. Now, it had the same view then. We have worked to the point that it’s not about services from council. It’s not about usable land. It’s not about home sites because it can’t be. So it all comes down to the view. So the view at October 2009 it was $155,000 valuation. On the 1st of October 2010 it went up to $170,000, so it can only be based on the view which has always been there. Then, it went from October 2011 from $170,000 - - -

Sorry, from October 2011 or 2010?---From October 2010 it was valued at $170,000.

Yes?---The valuation on the 1st of October 2011 is $295,000 and we’re valuating a view because we have come to the point that that’s the only valuable part of the property. So when did the view between 1st of October 2010 and the 1st of October 2011 go from $170,000 to $295,000 when it’s the same view?

So you point to that $125,000 jump as you just don’t understand it?---It’s an incredibly large jump. Correct me if I’m wrong but at that same evaluation a resident’s in Warwick increased by 6 per cent. I think mine increased by 80.”^[28]

61. [61]
    Subsequent to the passage of evidence-in-chief set out above Mr Tait did not provide any additional explanation to the Court which assisted an understanding of his case. 
62. [62]
    Attached to the material filed by Mr Tait were details of three properties, the valuations of which Mr Tait asserted were relevant to consideration of whether the valuation on his property ought stand.^[29] 
63. [63]
    The first of those was in respect of land described as Lot 143 on M 341087, Parish of Cunningham.  That land Mr Tait described as being the nearest property to his that has changed hands in recent history.  He acknowledged that it was much larger than his property and was suitable for agriculture and construction, further he contended (and this was not sought to be contradicted) that the land lay at the same elevation of his but was twice as large and could produce an income.  That property located on an unnamed road off Condamine River Road at Mount Colliery had an area of 127.5 ha, was unzoned and as at 30 June 2012 was valued at $185,000.
64. [64]
    It appears but it is not entirely clear from the extract tendered by Mr Tait that that land may have had water and sewerage available to it. 
65. [65]
    It had sold, according to the extract, for $230,000 on 9 July 2010.
66. [66]
    Mr Tait also tendered property details of land located at Lot 840 on Sunday Plains Road, Mount Colliery. 
67. [67]
    He described that land as bordering his to the west and lying at the same elevation. 
68. [68]
    That land, which is otherwise described as Lot 840 on M 34421, Parish of Emu Vale had an area of 40.46 ha and was valued at 30 June 2012 at $37,000.
69. [69]
    That land was not the subject of a recent sale having last sold on 20 January 1996 for $187,000. 
70. [70]
    The third property to which Mr Tait wished to draw the Court’s attention was described by him as bordering his land to the east and having a Condamine River frontage. 
71. [71]
    That land was located at 831 Condamine River Road, The Falls, Queensland and had an area of 132.82 ha and was otherwise described as Lot 46 on M 341058, Lot 805 on M 34423 and Lot 40 on ML 253, Parish of Emu Vale. 
72. [72]
    The valuation on that land was, as at 30 June 2012, $105,000.
73. [73]
    Mr Tait produced a document identified as a response to the report prepared by Mr Bomford.^[30]
74. [74]
    In that response Mr Tait reiterated his opinion that the only matter outstanding between him and Mr Bomford was the matter of the value of the views available from his property, as he put it, at an altitude of 1020 m.  He wanted to point out that because of the presence of clouds sometimes his land was above cloud base and sometimes below it so that the views are not always as might be anticipated. 
75. [75]
    In addition Mr Tait exhibited to his response an email received from the Southern Downs Regional Council making it clear that they did not support any prospect for reconfiguration of the subject land the minimum lot size in Mr Tait’s area being mandated at 200 ha whereas his land had an area of only 72.8 ha.^[31]
76. [76]
    Mr Pepper cross-examined Mr Tait about the issue of other building sites being available on his land. 
77. [77]
    When challenged by Mr Pepper to identify any of the physical characteristics of his land which Mr Tait had referred to in his notice of appeal or in his evidence, Mr Tait responded to the effect that in his view Mr Bomford had over-emphasised the possible availability of another building site on the subject land because the place was un-subdividable. 
78. [78]
    When queried by me in the following terms:

“What is the point, if it’s agreed that the land is not able to be subdivided and the uncontradicted evidence to date is that he can’t build another house on the property, what’s the relevance of an additional one or two building sites on the property?”^[32]

Mr Pepper responded that:

“The evidence of Mr Bomford is that when assessing the unimproved value of this land the fact that it has more than one available building site is a factor to be taken into account in its valuation compared to sites that don’t have more than one available site.”^[33]

79. [79]
    Mr Pepper was challenged to identify where in Mr Bomford’s report he said that but ultimately Mr Bomford’s approach was:

“He has concluded that if you have this land with a number of choices as to where one can put a house compared to another block in its unimproved state where you have only got one location where you can put a house because of its typography then he concludes that this land has a higher unimproved value.”^[34]

80. [80]
    Mr Pepper conceded that Mr Bomford did not necessarily identify one site on the subject as being better than another. 
81. [81]
    Mr Tait ultimately accepted that what was on the subject land was largely irrelevant in that the exercise the Court, Mr Bomford and indeed he, had to carry out was to assess the unimproved value of the land assuming no improvements at all on it. 
82. [82]
    Also under cross-examination Mr Tait was provided with an opportunity to express his reservations about Mr Bomford’s contentions that the building sites (accepting that there were at least two on the subject site) afforded 360º views through the Condamine River Gorge, Spring Creek, Great Dividing Range and Western Plain Country.
83. [83]
    Mr Tait responded (I think with some merit) that no site on the subject land provided 360º views. 
84. [84]
    Mr Pepper conceded that:

“It’s not the respondent’s case that there is a single location on this land where one has access to all of the views available from the land, at the one time.”^[35]

85. [85]
    Mr Tait was invited to identify any relevant sales that Mr Bomford should have considered but was unable to identify any such sales.  The real gist of Mr Tait’s case was revealed in cross-examination by Mr Pepper when he asked:

“So is that the basis for your contention that the valuation of the property in 2011 should be 170 is because that’s what it was when you purchased it and the views haven’t changed?

No, I – the views haven’t changed. Exactly. But the reason it shouldn’t go up is because I don’t receive any services. I’ve stated it. I receive no services. So there’s been no material change of use.

Okay?---Okay?

Right. So that’s - - -?---So the only thing that could change the value would be the view.

Okay. So the services haven’t changed since you bought it?---No.

The view hasn’t changed since you bought it. Therefore, the unimproved value shouldn’t change since you bought it?---Yes.

That’s your – that’s the way you’ve done it?---Yes.”^[36]

86. [86]
    In his last chance for what was effectively self-re-examination Mr Tait took up the proposition that had earlier been advanced to him in cross-examination by Mr Pepper. 
87. [87]
    That proposition was that in 2014 Mr Tait had placed his property on the market for a figure of $1,350,000. 
88. [88]
    Mr Tait gave evidence that he regarded his asking for that figure as a purely speculative offer. 
89. [89]
    Mr Tait then directed the Court’s attention to an observation by Mr Bomford in his report where he was explaining the basis of his valuation. 
90. [90]
    In the course of that report^[37] Mr Bomford had observed:

“Three real estate property listings have been included in this report, the first being the sales brochure used to market the subject property in 2009, the second being the current 2013 listing of the subject and the third being a 2013 listing of a rural homesite located in close proximity to the subject Lot 79 M341288.  Although not considered actual sales evidence they demonstrate the exclusivity of land and the higher levels of value perceived by the owners in this locality.”

91. [91]
    To that proposition Mr Tait responded that Mr Bomford was talking about “perceived value, not realistic value.  Value that hasn’t been realised yet.”^[38]

The Evidence of Mr Bomford

92. [92]
    Mr Bomford, as pointed out earlier, had provided two reports^[39] to the Court, one a statement of evidence prepared in anticipation of the appeal and the other a response report prepared by him responding to the written material which had been filed in Court by Mr Tait. 
93. [93]
    In his written report^[40] Mr Bomford observed as follows:

“My valuation of the subject land is determined through the use of comparable sales evidence that has occurred up to the date of issue of 20 March 2012 of the valuation and have transacted under normal market circumstances as bona fide sales…Relativity is used by the Valuer-General for mass valuation purposes and I have not relied upon relative unimproved values of other land to determine the value of the subject land at the date of valuation.”

94. [94]
    In his initial report Mr Bomford addressed the various property valuations identified by Mr Tait as, on his case, being comparable to the subject land. 
95. [95]
    Those properties were identified as the following:^[41]

“i. Lot 59 on M341230 Parish of Emu Vale, consisting of 60.91Ha, unimproved value of $197,500.

ii. Lot 143 on M341087 Parish of Cunningham, consisting of 127.5Ha, unimproved value of $167,500.

iii. Lot 1 on RP18305 Parish of Emu Vale, consisting of 11.5Ha, unimproved value of $108,000.

iv. Lot 2 on RP134605 Parish of Killarney, consisting of 86.86Ha, unimproved value of $260,000.

v. Lot 1987 on M34776 Parish of Cunningham, consisting of 64.75ha, unimproved value of $245,000.

vi. Lot 160 on ML 2061 Parish of Killarney, consisting of 52.97Ha, unimproved value of $162,500.”

96. [96]
    Mr Bomford gave a brief analysis of each of the properties referred by Mr Tait. 
97. [97]
    With respect to Lot 59 on M341230 Mr Bomford pointed out that the value relied upon by Mr Tait was incorrect and was in fact $217,500 not $197,500.
98. [98]
    With respect to that Lot 59 Mr Bomford identified it as having a gravel road frontage, no mains power, a level building platform and an elevation of 650 m above sea level which provided what he described as vastly inferior westerly views.  He said it is inferior to the subject site because of its lower elevation and inferior views. 
99. [99]
    With respect to Lot 143 Mr Bomford pointed out that again Mr Tait was mistaken as to its valuation it being valued at $185,000 not $167,500.  It is unnecessary to recite all of the details alluded to by Mr Bomford save that he categorised that Lot 143 as overall inferior to the subject site, again because of vastly inferior views and the lack of formed access. 
100. [100]
     With respect to Lot 1 on RP 18305 Mr Bomford pointed out that once again Mr Tait was incorrect in his assertion of its value, it having a value of $190,000 not $108,000.  That lot has difficult gravel road access which is not considered to be all-weather access, is low-lying and elevated between 600 and 650 m above sea level, having inferior views but a frontage to the Condamine River.  Once again Mr Bomford assessed that lot as being inferior to the subject. 
101. [101]
     With respect to Lot 2 on RP 134605 which land has an area of 86.86 ha Mr Bomford says that while it is slightly superior in size it has inferior access to suitable building platforms, inferior 4WD access, a lower elevation and no access to mains power.  Overall he categorised it as inferior to the subject site. 
102. [102]
     He also considered Lot 1987 on M 34776 which had an area of 64.75 ha and a valuation of $245,000.  That land he says is located off the range of Emu Vale and consists of mostly cleared softwood scrub which is arable to the use of grazing country.  That site is located in the lower Condamine Valley with inferior western views and again, in Mr Bomford’s opinion, is overall inferior to the subject land. 
103. [103]
     Finally with respect to Lot 160 on ML 2061 which has an area of 182.314 ha and which was described by Mr Tait in his notice of appeal as being valued at $162,500, Mr Bomford says that land is in fact valued at $480,000 and comprises a rural aggregation which, pursuant to s 46 of the Land Valuation Act, was valued as farming and thus was not comparable to the subject site on a relativity basis.^[42] 
104. [104]
     In his oral evidence Mr Bomford conceded that while he had referred to 360º views from the subject land in his report, there are no 360º views from any one point that give full uninterrupted views.  He said however that “there are glimpses of westerly views, easterly views and southerly views from different points on that property there.”^[43] 
105. [105]
     Mr Bomford was asked whether there were, within the sales upon which he relied any sites which had better views than the subject site.  Mr Bomford identified one sale — his Sale 3 of land located at Spring Creek Road, The Falls which he said had similar views and was really two lots (one of which was the internal lot) but which were susceptible to reconfiguration.  He considered that land to be overall vastly superior to the subject land because of its location and potential for reconfiguration.  Mr Bomford reiterated under oath that his approach for valuation of the subject land was as a single unit dwelling rural residential homesite on land without any subdivisional potential or any potential for a higher use. 
106. [106]
     He also informed the Court that while he was aware of a previously granted approval for a guest house or a number of guest houses that that approval had lapsed and had not been taken into account in his valuation exercise.  He had placed no additional weight on the valuation because of that apparent potential.^[44]
107. [107]
     Mr Tait told the Court that in his opinion from 2011 to 2012 the land market in the areas around the subject site had not changed. 
108. [108]
     Mr Bomford had been asked questions about Lots 805 on M34423 and Lot 40 on ML253 consisting of 66 ha next door to the subject land which had sold through an agent for $280,000 on 2 November 2011.
109. [109]
     He had informed the Court that he had not taken that into account in his original report but had addressed it in his response report.^[45]
110. [110]
     He regarded that land as inferior to the subject because it was located down in the Gorge, had a low elevation and access to the second parcel was unobtainable. 

Conclusions

111. [111]
     I have come to the view that, considering all of the evidence both documentary and contained in the various exhibits before the Court and all of the oral evidence, Mr Tait has failed to discharge the onus of proof of the grounds of appeal advanced by him.  Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.
112. [112]
     It is appropriate to provide some explanation of how I have come to that conclusion.
113. [113]
     In a short written outline handed to the Court by Mr Pepper for the respondent he advanced the following: 

“Therefore, in order to succeed, the appellant must identify grounds of appeal which, if proved on the balance of probabilities, would establish that the respondent acted on a wrong principle, or made a serious error of fact, or applied a fundamentally erroneous method in determining the valuation appealed against.”

114. [114]
     Mr Pepper went on to point out that this Court is not an investigating tribunal and is limited to the evidence which is placed before it by the parties. 
115. [115]
     Mr Pepper also acknowledged that the onus borne by Mr Tait is not easy to discharge without evidence from a registered valuer. 
116. [116]
     He called, in aid of that proposition, the decisions in JL and I Qualischefski & Ors v Valuer-General (1979) 6 QLCR 167 at 172 and BT Dillon v Valuer-General (1987) 11 QLCR 231 at 233.
117. [117]
     Mr Pepper’s reservations with respect to Mr Tait’s capacity to discharge the onus without the benefit of a valuer were, in the event, well-founded and that outcome reflects the limitations which I referred to earlier in this decision.
118. [118]
     I should also comment that, in my view, Mr Tait’s approach to the valuation exercise in respect of his land was to some extent derailed by his focus purely upon the fact that whatever views may be available from his property have not changed over the time of the numerous valuations which he has received from the respondent. 
119. [119]
     Neither was it apt for Mr Tait to refer to or rely upon the likely implications for the amount of rates he is required to pay on the property.  The official valuation drives the rates payable – not the other way around. 
120. [120]
     For all of those reasons set out above I reach the view that, despite his best efforts Mr Tait has not been able to prove that the valuation issued by the respondent is wrong or that the figure for which he contends should be accepted.  Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed.

Order

1. The appeal is dismissed and the valuation of the Valuer-General as at 1 October 2011 effective from 30 June 2012 is affirmed at $295,000 (Two Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars).

WL COCHRANE

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT