Jensen v Valuer-General[2022] QLC 23

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   The Valuer General must decide the value of land under section 5 of the Land Valuation Act. Matthew and Stewart Jensen own land at Yungaburra. The Valuer General issued a valuation of the land on 1 October 2020, giving it a value of $640,000. The Jensens have appealed that valuation.

2. [2]
   One of their grounds of appeal is that the land is outside the jurisdiction of the Valuer General and the State of Queensland. This decision deals with only that ground of appeal.

3. [3]
   The Federal Court recognised the native title rights of the Yidindji.^[1] None of the Determination Areas extend to Yungaburra.^[2] In addition, the Jensens do not assert that they are one of the native title holders identified in any of the Native Title Determinations.

4. [4]
   Even if they were, the Native Title Act, under which the native title determinations are made, is not intended to affect the operation of any law of the State that is capable of operating concurrently with the Act.^[3] There is no suggestion that the Land Valuation Act cannot operate concurrently with the Native Title Act. Therefore, the Jensens’ right to their land is subject to the Land Valuation Act and this ground of appeal must fail.

5. [5]
   There is a further problem with the Jensens’ assertions. They hold their land in fee simple under the Torrens title system. Native title is extinguished by the grant of an interest that is wholly or partially inconsistent with native title.^[4] Freehold is an such an interest.^[5] Native title in this land has been extinguished and it cannot be revived.^[6]

6. [6]
   However, the Jensens also assert that the Yidindji are a separate sovereign nation and the State of Queensland has no power to make laws about, or tax, the land of a separate sovereign nation.

7. [7]
   The High Court in Coe v The Commonwealth has determined that: ^[7] “the contention that there is in Australia an aboriginal nation exercising sovereignty, even of a limited kind, is quite impossible in law to maintain”. The later High Court decision of Mabo v Queensland (No 2),^[8] the landmark decision which recognised native title, did not depart from the earlier decision on Aboriginal sovereignty articulated by Coe v The Commonwealth. Mabo also made it clear that issues of sovereignty cannot be challenged in an Australian municipal court.^[9] The Land Court of Queensland is a municipal court. It is therefore inappropriate for the Jensens to challenge the issue of sovereignty in this Court.

8. [8]
   The appeal should proceed on the Jensens’ remaining grounds of appeal.

Orders

1. 1.
   By 4:00pm on Monday, 30 January 2023, the Jensens must file in the Land Court Registry and serve on the Valuer-General its statement of facts and issues which must address the following matters:

1. a)
   the alleged error in the issued valuation;

1. b)
   the unimproved value of the land which the Jensens says is the correct valuation;

1. c)
   the highest and best use of the land;

1. d)
   the valuation methodology adopted;

1. e)
   a list of comparable sales; and

1. f)
   details of any site-specific characteristics, including planning and site constraints that affect valuation.

1. 2.
   By 4:00pm on Monday, 13 February 2023, the Valuer-General must file in the Land Court Registry and serve on the Jensens its statement of facts and issues in response which must address the following matters:

1. a)
   the unimproved value of the land;

1. b)
   the highest and best use of the land;

1. c)
   the valuation methodology adopted;

1. d)
   a list of any sales proposed by the Jensens which are accepted as comparable;

1. e)
   a list of any additional sales that were not referred to in the Jensens list which are said to be comparable;

1. f)
   details of any site-specific characteristics, including planning and site constraints that were considered in determining the valuation; and

1. g)
   detail the reasons for its objection decision in relation to the land.

1. 3.
   At the hearing, the statements of facts and issues will be the evidence in chief of the author, unless the Court orders otherwise.

“Author” means:

1. a)
   For an individual appellant, the appellant or a person nominated in writing by the appellant.

1. b)
   For a corporate appellant or the Valuer-General, the person who signed the statement of facts and issues or a person otherwise nominated in writing.

1. 4.
   The case is listed for a hearing review at 10:00am on Monday, 27 February 2022 in Brisbane.

1. 5.
   If a party becomes aware of any circumstances that may prevent them from complying with a direction, they must notify the Land Court Registry and the other party, in writing, as soon as practicable, of the following matters:

1. a)
   any direction they cannot or may not be able to comply with;

1. b)
   the reason for the anticipated non-compliance; and

1. c)
   the party’s proposal to remedy the non-compliance, including any proposed variation to the current directions.

1. 6.
   Either party may apply for review by giving at least two (2) business days’ written notice to the Land Court Registry and to the other party of:

1. a)
   the proposed date for review;

1. b)
   the reasons for the request; and the proposed directions.