Stewart v Department of Resources
[2025] QLC 10
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
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.
- Unreported Judgment
- Stewart v Department of Resources[2025] QLC 10
- Add to List
Stewart v Department of Resources[2025] QLC 10
Stewart v Department of Resources[2025] QLC 10
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Stewart v Department of Resources [2025] QLC 10 |
PARTIES: | Diana Pearl Stewart (appellant) v Department of Resources (respondent) |
FILE NO: | LAA451-24 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal against review decision regarding the purchase price for conversion of tenure under the Land Act 1994 |
DELIVERED ON: | 14 May 2025 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARD ON: | 24 March 2025 |
HEARD AT: | Atherton |
MEMBER: | N.D. Loos |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | VALUATION OF LAND – UNIMPROVED VALUE – METHODS OF ASSESSING – determination of purchase price of lease for conversion purposes under the Land Act 1994 – valuation – unimproved value – where there was a paucity of sales – where sales from different locality employed – whether negative factors of subject land were properly brought to account in assessing unimproved value – internal review decision set aside and substituted Land Act 1994, ss 170, 426, 429 Land Regulation 2020, ss 1, 9 Alexander & Ors v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority & Ors (2010) 233 FCR 575, cited BWP Management Ltd v Valuer-General (2019) 40 QLCR 232; [2019] QLAC 4, cited Commissioner of Succession Duties (SA) v Executor Trustee and Agency Co of South Australia (1947) 74 CLR 358, cited Gold Coast City Council v Sunland Group Ltd (2019) 1 QR 304, cited Jensen & Anor v Valuer-General [2024] QLAC 3, cited Korab & Co Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources (1996) 16 QLCR 409; [1996] QLC 37, cited Moar v Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines and Energy [2004] QLC 67, considered Valuer-General v Body Corporate for ‘Tennyson Reach’ Community Titles Scheme 39925 (2018) 39 QLCR 302; [2018] QLAC 7, considered |
APPEARANCES: | Mr A Stewart on behalf of the appellant, Mrs D Stewart Mr P Prasad, In House Legal, for the Department |
Introduction
- [1]Mr and Mrs Stewart live in Biboohra, near Mareeba. Mrs Stewart leases a parcel of land from the State.[1]
- [2]In April 2022, Mrs Stewart applied to have the lease converted to freehold.
- [3]The Department of Resources[2] responded to that application about 828 days later, by setting the purchase price for the conversion from leasehold to freehold at $450,000.
- [4]Mrs Stewart thought that amount too high. She sought an internal review.
- [5]The internal review came back at $425,000.
- [6]Mrs Stewart appeals that internal review decision.
- [7]She says that the correct value is $340,000.
The issues
- [8]Mrs Stewart raises the following issues:
- the internal review decision was required to state reasons but did not; and
- the amount set by the Department is grossly excessive when compared to the comparative sales and valuation data.
Legislation and principles
- [9]The process for the conversion of a lease is governed by the Land Act 1994 and the Land Regulation 2020.
- [10]
- [11]The unimproved value of the land is the amount the land would be worth:
- after proper marketing, where there was an exchange between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arms-length transaction; and,
- where the buyer and seller had acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.[5]
- [12]The powers of the Court are set out in section 429 of the Land Act. An appeal of this kind is by way of rehearing.
- [13]The Department submits that the Appellant has the onus of proof for each of the grounds of appeal and that the following passage from the Land Appeal Court decision of Valuer-General v Body Corporate for ‘Tennyson Reach’[6] applies:
… the Court has a duty to undertake a two-step process in considering an appeal. The first step is to determine whether or not the evidence in its totality supports the case put by an appellant that the issued valuation is in error, on the balance of probabilities, so that the onus of proof is discharged. If the onus of proof is discharged, the second phase of the evaluation to be undertaken by the Court comes into play. That is, what is the correct valuation of the subject land? The Court can only get to a consideration as to the correct valuation of the subject land and thus, s 170(b) of the LVA, in circumstances where the onus of proof has been discharged.
- [14]The two step test in Tennyson Reach was the product of a particular reading of the Land Valuation Act.[7] A later Land Appeal Court decision has approved that passage,[8] while a different Land Appeal Court decision has approved a different passage in Tennyson Reach.[9] The test applies to cases dealing with the Land Valuation Act. The Department made no submissions about why it ought also to apply to cases under the Land Act. I am not sure that it does.
- [15]Whether the two step test from paragraph [50] of Tennyson Reach applies or not, I accept the Department’s submission that Mrs Stewart bears the onus in this appeal.
- [16]The Department alternated between relying on cases from various statutory regimes.[10] Again, I am not sure that Land Valuation Act authorities are directly applicable to a Land Act case such as this.
Challenge to the validity of the internal review decision
- [17]Mrs Stewart says she suffered disadvantage because the Department did not give reasons for the internal review decision. She says she did not understand why the valuation was reduced from $450,000 to $425,000 until it was explained at the hearing.
- [18]It was not clear whether Mrs Stewart was asking the Court to find that the internal review decision was invalid. Mr Stewart said something to that effect during the hearing.[11] He referred to a case decided by Member Scott that considered a similar situation.[12] At other points, Mr Stewart relied on this point in asking the Court to give equal weight to the evidence submitted by each side.
- [19]The Department says that this is not the forum to challenge the validity of the internal review decision. It referred to a different case decided by Member Scott.[13]
- [20]Section 426 of the Act states:
426 Decision on reconsideration
- After reviewing the original decision, the Minister must make a further decision (the review decision) to confirm the original decision, amend the original decision or substitute a new decision.
- The chief executive must immediately give the applicant notice of the decision.
- The notice must state—
- the day the notice is given to the applicant (the review notice day); and
- if the review decision is not the decision sought by the applicant—
- the reasons for the decision; and
- that the applicant may appeal against the decision to the court within 42 days after the review notice day.
- [21]
- [22]Separate from the absence of reasons, Mrs Stewart says the documents provided by the Department with the internal review decision include reference to the wrong Court form, an invitation to direct all future correspondence to an email address that contained a typographical error – so that emails sent to that address went undelivered – and a note that if the figure was not accepted, Mrs Stewart could apply for internal review.[15] As to the last point, the internal review decision was incorrectly inviting another internal review.
- [23]That the internal review decision offered no reasons and apparently contained errors, had a significant negative impact on Mrs Stewart. It created additional complexity for her and prejudiced the way which she prepared her evidence and arguments for this appeal.
- [24]The Department pointed out that the Stewarts could have requested reasons for the decision. That is true. I note, though, that Mrs Stewart is self-represented and did not apparently understand that that was something she could do. It would have been better if the obligation in s 426(3)(b)(i) could have been complied with.
- [25]
- [26]The case relied on by the Department – Moar v Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines and Energy[18] – does not consider the point in any detail. The Department cited no other cases on the topic.
- [27]Absent any detailed submissions about potential invalidity,[19] I am not able to conclude that the internal review decision in this instance was invalid.
- [28]The Court is equipped with evidence to determine the value of the subject land.
The subject land
- [29]The subject land is 36 Coyle Road, Biboohra. It is three kilometres north of the Biboohra township and 14 kilometres from Mareeba by road.
- [30]It is an 83 hectare corner block. It has an 887 metre road frontage to the Mulligan Highway, although no access is available from there. Access is from Coyle Road.
- [31]The land has electricity and telephone services connected. There is no town water or sewer.
- [32]About 66 hectares has been cleared of vegetation to improve pastures. The remaining 17 hectares is remnant open forest/woodland. There is a power line that traverses the property along the old Mount Molly railway line.
- [33]The annual valuation issued by the State Valuation Service for 30 June 2022 was $232,500.[20] That is a value determined under a different statutory regime. I have not used it in the analysis in this appeal.
The competing positions on the value of the land
- [34]Mrs Stewart’s key points about the value of the land are:
- the Department’s value of $425,000 is excessive because the Department’s valuer:
- has not taken into account the waterlogging of the property since 2017;
- compared it with other properties that do not accurately reflect the market value of rural residential lifestyle properties;
- analysed the price of one of the sales (Bilwon Road) on a simplistic basis which has not been evidenced by broad based market data;
- has not taken into account all the site characteristics of the subject property;
- the true value of the property is $340,000 based on a report prepared by Northern Property Valuers dated 29 August 2024.
- the Department’s value of $425,000 is excessive because the Department’s valuer:
- [35]The Department says:
- Mrs Stewart has not demonstrated error in the Department’s valuation;
- as a result, Mrs Stewart has not discharged her onus and the appeal ought to fail;
- there should be no generous approach towards the landowner, as this appeal is more akin to a revenue case than a compensation case.
The lay evidence
- [36]Mr Stewart gave evidence about the characteristics of the subject land.
- [37]One of his key points was that the Department’s figure does not properly account for the extent to which the property gets waterlogged. Mr Stewart described the problem in his evidence and also produced three drone videos[21] showing waterlogging on the property.
- [38]He adopted as his evidence, Attachment 2 of the Appellant’s Statement of Facts and Issues.[22] That document describes the property as follows:
The property is of near level gradient and has little natural drainage and can develop areas of waterlogging during the wet season.
The waterlogging problem has dramatically increase [sic] since about 2017/18 at which time an area of about 200 ha, to the south of Lot 299 NR 7718, was cleared and planted to sugar cane. This cane paddock was laser levelled and drained which has adversely impacted on several neighbouring properties. Department of Resources records should be able to identify the relevant dates that approval was given for land clearing and drainage works.
Due to the development of this cane property it is estimated that an additional 15 to 20 ha of land on Lot 299 NR7718 has been impacted and the waterlogging problem has been extended and the problem can now occur from December through to April, a period of 5 months…
- [39]I accept Mr Stewart’s evidence that an additional 15 to 20 hectares of the property becomes significantly waterlogged between December and April each year.[23] Mr Stewart was challenged during his cross-examination about not being a hydraulic engineer. He responded by detailing his experience as a tobacco and mango farmer in the area near the subject land.[24] He knows about the difference between river flooding, overland flow and drainage problems. Mr Stewart provided a clear explanation of the waterlogging issue and maintained his evidence on the topic throughout his cross-examination. The drone videos[25] illustrate the magnitude of the problem. It is consequential that those videos show water sitting on the subject land on 28 December 2024,[26] several days after significant rainfall is recorded as having fallen at the nearby Mareeba airport.[27]
- [40]I accept that waterlogging is a significant negative feature of the property for the purpose of assessing its value.
The valuation evidence
- [41]The Department relies on the evidence of Mr Matthew Wilson, a registered valuer and employee of the State Valuation Service. He prepared a report and gave oral evidence.
- [42]
- [43]The hearing was stood down for Mr Stewart to contact Mr Jarred or to otherwise consider what he would like to do with Mr Jarred’s report. That did not lead to Mr Jarred being produced.
- [44]The Department, helpfully, did not object to Mr Jarred’s report being admitted into evidence.[30] It said it would be “a matter of what weight the court should put to that evidence… and that will be a matter for submissions”.[31] The Department ultimately submitted that Mr Jarred’s report should be given very little weight.[32]
- [45]I agree that very little weight should be given to Mr Jarred’s report. I place no reliance on his opinions given they were not able to be tested.
- [46]In his report, Mr Wilson responded to Mr Jarred’s report, which assists in putting the sales in their proper context. Mr Wilson suggested that Mr Jarred incorrectly approached his valuation exercise on a rate per square metre basis – when that is not how it ought to be done in a case such as this. Because Mr Jarred was not available to respond to that, that is another reason I am not willing to rely on Mr Jarred’s analysis.
Mr Wilson’s evidence
- [47]Mr Wilson provided an unimproved value for the subject land of $425,000.
- [48]He relied on four sales to reach that conclusion. Two out of those four sales are the same property – 37 Oaky Valley Avenue, Mutchilba – which sold twice in a span of 18 months. Mr Wilson offered this table at page 22 of his report:
Sale No. | Location | Date of Sale | Sale Price | Analysed unimproved | Land Area | Comparison |
Sale 1 | Peters Road, Mareeba | 07/04/2022 | $495,000 | $445,000 *$480,000 | 118.57 ha | Slightly Superior *Superior |
Subject | 36 Coyle Road, Biboohra | 22/04/2022 | $425,000 | $425,000 | 80 ha | Subject |
Sale 2 | 37 Oaky Valley Ave, Mutchilba | 05/09/2022 | $320,000 | $305,000 *$284,000 | 80.57 ha | Far inferior |
Sale 3 | 1028 Bilwon Road, Biboohra | 06/06/2021 | $370,000 | $315,000 *$375,000 | 30.3 ha | Far inferior |
Sale 4 | 37 Oaky Valley Ave, Mutchilba | 20/05/2021 | $250,000 | $235,000 | 80.57 ha | Far inferior |
* Denotes an adjusted analysis as referred to in the sales comments.
- [49]Each of those sales was either vacant or of a lightly improved standard for rural residential homesites. That is similar to the subject site.
- [50]Mr Wilson’s analysis of the sales was based on considerations of land area, access, flooding and access to water.
- [51]Mr Wilson’s role in the valuation of the subject land was slightly unusual. He produced the first valuation of $450,000.[33] He had no role in the internal review that brought that figure down to $425,000.[34] He did, however, then produce an expert report for this case valuing the subject land at $425,000. The expert report does not give any clue as to how Mr Wilson’s opinion changed from the $450,000 to the $425,000 figure.
- [52]When asked about the $25,000 reduction between his two valuations, his evidence was:
So can I ask you the question where was the change in the valuation from 450 to 425. What was it in regard to?---Oh – I’ve had to have a look at the sales that I used, and the analysis of those sales were – ah – a couple of items came to light through that, and those changes formed a change to my opinion.
Thank you, sir.
LOOS M: Are you able to say which items came to light? Are you – is there any?---Yeah, some of the – the clearing costs on the Bilwon Road sale I – I had to have a look at and the way the sales were – um – analysed in terms of the added value of the improvements that were on the sites after I interviewed the purchasers and got a better understanding on how they viewed the improvements I then amended my analysis to reflect how the market was looking at it.[35]
- [53]His report explains his overall analysis and concludes:
The subject property is considered to have an unimproved value higher than $375,000 (adjusted Sale 3) and slightly less than $445,000 (the original analysed value of Sale 1).
Mr Wilson’s sale 1
- [54]The property at Peters Road, Mareeba sold on 7 April 2022 for $495,000. At 118.57 hectares it is larger than the subject property.
- [55]Mr Wilson analysed the unimproved value at $480,000, concluding it was superior to the subject land.
- [56]Mr Stewart argued the sale was not comparable because there was an indication that the purchaser was not interested in the land for rural lifestyle purposes, but rather for development. There was mention of a boot camp for young offenders or if that idea failed, of subdivision.[36] The evidence about the purchaser’s motives and plans for future use of the land is not clear enough to reach a conclusion about the impact it had on the purchase price.
- [57]The land is comparable, but it is superior to the subject land on size and proximity to Mareeba. Mr Wilson thought that “[b]eing in a similar location both the sale and the subject property experience a level of waterlogging during periods of heavy rain”.[37]
- [58]I agree that being close to the subject land, the sale property likely experiences very similar rainfall. Whether it has similar drainage problems or waterlogging is not clear.
- [59]A component of Mr Wilson’s analysis of sale 1 is a $35,000 adjustment to account for that land not having an electricity connection. Mr Wilson obtained a quote for a solar system with battery storage – at $40,230.[38] Mr Wilson wrote that it “is difficult to estimate the cost to extend electricity to the sale parcel” from existing electrical infrastructure 800 metres away.[39] The evidence does not reveal the comparative costs. Mr Wilson was right to adjust for the electricity connection and his use of the quote for the solar system is a satisfactory general estimate.
- [60]My conclusion about sale 1 is that it is markedly superior to the subject land. It is larger, closer to Mareeba, and it has superior water availability. As negatives, it has no electricity connection and has less cleared area. I do not think that the lesser cleared area is a significant factor in comparing rural lifestyle blocks.
- [61]The land sold only two weeks prior to the date of valuation and is only 7 kilometres from the subject land. It is the most helpful sale. The subject land should be appreciably lower in value to account for its smaller size and waterlogging problem.
Mr Wilson’s sale 2 and sale 4
- [62]37 Oaky Valley Avenue, Mutchilba sold on 20 May 2021 for $250,000. It is very nearly the same size as the subject property, at 80.57 hectares.
- [63]It sold again on 5 September 2022 for $320,000.
- [64]Those two transactions are Mr Wilson’s sales 2 and 4. He analysed the two sales at unimproved values of $235,000 and $284,000.
- [65]Mr Wilson assessed this property as being far inferior/markedly inferior to the subject property based on location and topography.
- [66]The land is 53 kilometres away from the subject land. It is nearer to Atherton than it is to Mareeba.
- [67]The land is an unusual, inconvenient shape. It has different topography.
- [68]The only comparable feature is size. Given the shape and topography, however, the similarity in size is not as comparable as it seems.
- [69]Mr Wilson did not clearly articulate why the land increased in value by 28 percent in less than one year.
- [70]He was challenged in cross-examination about the distance that the property was from the subject site. It was suggested to him that the property was in a different postcode and that the area it was in may have experienced a movement in market value that was not directly translatable to the subject land. Mr Wilson disagreed.[40]
- [71]My view is that Mr Wilson under-accounted for the difference in locations. That the sale land is near Atherton and the subject land is near Mareeba reveals they are not easily comparable. The increase in value of sale 2 and 4 is too small a sample size to extrapolate a uniform increase in value across the Tablelands of 28 percent in less than one year. My view is that it is more likely that different areas/localities increased by different amounts.
Mr Wilson’s sale 3
- [72]1028 Bilwon Road, Biboohra sold on 6 May 2021 for $370,000. It is only 30.3 hectares.
- [73]Mr Wilson analysed this sale to a value of $315,000, because of improvements and because it has a five megalitre water allocation from the Barron River. On the basis of the increase in price for sales 2 and 4, he then analysed the sale back up to an adjusted unimproved value of $375,000.
- [74]He concluded it was far inferior to the subject land.
- [75]A substantial band across the middle of the sale property is marked as being within the Extreme Flood Hazard level on the flood hazard overlay map in the planning scheme. Mr Wilson notes that marker is “considered a negative characteristic in the marketplace potentially impacting the cost or ability to insure improvements on the property”.[41] I accept that evidence.
- [76]The sale property is certainly much smaller than the subject land. Once the water allocation is taken into account, the analysed figure of $315,000 makes sense.
- [77]For the reasons set out above, I do not accept Mr Wilson’s approach of analysing that $315,000 up to $375,000 because of the increase in the value of sales 2 and 4. The land may have increased in value somewhat, but the evidence does not support a direct application of that 28 percent increase to land about 50 kilometres away.
- [78]Sale 3 is helpful because it is near the subject land. While it is affected by flooding (according to the planning scheme map), there is no information about its susceptibility to waterlogging. Mr Stewart pointed out that the subject land is not affected by floodwater or water from a river – the “waterlogging” issue is a problem of rainwater not draining away.[42] They are different water issues. In any case, both sale 3 and the subject property are negatively affected by a water related issue.
- [79]Sale 3 sets a useful floor for the analysis of the subject land – that is, the subject land cannot be too close to that figure because despite the similarities, the sale land is less than half the size of the subject land. The $315,000, or slightly more to account for some increase in the market between 6 May 2021 and April 2022, is a useful benchmark for assessing the value of the subject land.
Whether the assessment should be generous to the landholder
- [80]The Department submits that there is no scope to adopt a generous approach towards the landowner, such as might be taken in a compulsory acquisition case. It cites Commissioner of Succession Duties (SA) v Executor Trustee and Agency Co of South Australia[43] for the proposition that this appeal is more akin to a revenue case than a compensation case. The consequence is said to be that doubts are not to be resolved in favour of a more liberal estimate, but rather a more conservative estimate.
- [81]It is unnecessary to determine the point as I have not adopted an approach of giving Mrs Stewart the benefit of a more liberal estimate. Instead, the value of the land has been derived from an analysis of the sales evidence, absent any need to factor in a liberal or conservative approach.
Conclusions
- [82]If the two step test in Tennyson Reach applies, I conclude that the evidence in its totality supports the argument put by Mrs Stewart that the issued valuation is in error. That is because the sales evidence, properly analysed, does not support the figure of $425,000.
- [83]The basis of that conclusion is that Mr Wilson did not properly account for the disadvantages of the subject property, particularly waterlogging.
- [84]Mr Wilson attempted, in good faith, to assist the Court. That said, I found components of his evidence unclear. His method yielded some imprecise or anomalous reasoning:
- his analysis appeared not to properly bring to account the larger size of sale 1.[44] This can be compared with sale 3, which was more than 50 hectares smaller than the subject property – a factor which was apparently brought to account in his assessment that the land was ‘far inferior’ to the subject because it did not contain the same minimising qualification as sale 1;[45]
- his report noted the area of each of the sales that was cleared of vegetation (and in some instances commented on the possibility of future clearing), but he gave oral evidence that whether clearing was an improvement or not was subjective.[46] He said he had no regard to the clearing on the subject land;[47]
- it was unclear how he compared the subject land to the sale properties with respect to water supply. He told the Court that he had not looked into what it would cost Mrs Stewart to get a water supply on the subject property from the Barron River;[48]
- using the same land twice out of four sales was unusual. 37 Oaky Valley Avenue, Mutchilba is not very comparable to the subject and is not helpful. That that one parcel of land constituted 50 percent of Mr Wilson’s sales evidence, gives a distorted appearance of there being more helpful evidence to use to value the subject land than there actually is.
- [85]As to the second step of Tennyson Reach, it is the Court’s role to synthesise the evidence to reach a value for the subject land.
- [86]My view is that Mr Wilson’s valuation of $425,000 is too high because it did not properly account for waterlogging. He told the Court that he had not attributed a dollar value to the waterlogging problem, but had instead used sales that are subject to waterlogging.[49] That the other sales are subject to waterlogging, and to what extent, is unclear.[50] I do not consider that Mr Wilson’s approach adequately brought this negative attribute of the subject land to account.
- [87]As stated above, the value of the subject land ought to be appreciably lower than sale 1. The discount cannot be too great, however, as it is appropriate to preserve some proportionality downwards to sale 3.
- [88]As for Mrs Stewart’s figure of $340,000, I do not think that is correct because there must be some downward proportionality to sale 3. The $340,000 position is below the sale price and the analysed value of sale 3. I do not agree that the subject site should be valued at a lesser amount than the much smaller sale 3 land.
- [89]Based on the analysis set out above, the value of the subject land on 14 April 2022 (or 21 April 2022) was $390,000.
Orders
- [90]The orders are:
- The appeal is allowed.
- The unimproved value of Lot 299 on Crown Plan NR7718, as at 14 April 2022 or 21 April 2022, is determined at Three Hundred and Ninety Thousand Dollars ($390,000).
Footnotes
[1] Lot 299 on Crown Plan NR7718. That lease is due to expire in 2046.
[2] Now the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing and Regional and Rural Development.
[3] Land Act 1999, s 170(1); Land Regulation 2020, ss 9(1)(d), 9(3)(b).
[4] Mr Stewart says that the application was lodged on 14 April 2022. The Department says it received the application on 21 April 2022. That difference flowed through to the dates used by each expert valuer. The difference is not material to the assessment of value in this case.
[5] Land Regulation 2020, s 1(b).
[6] Community Titles Scheme 39925 (2018) 39 QLCR 302; [2018] QLAC 7 at [50].
[7] The passage appears in the judgment of Member Smith with whom Member Cochrane agreed. Justice Dalton wrote separate reasons and did not appear to endorse the passage.
[8] Jensen & Anor v Valuer-General [2024] QLAC 3 at [20] (decision of the Court).
[9] BWP Management Ltd v Valuer-General [2019] QLAC 4 at [5], was a reference to the reasons of Justice Dalton in Tennyson Reach.
[10] Land Act 1994, the repealed Valuation of Land Act 1944 and the in-force Land Valuation Act 2010.
[11] Transcript 1-7 at lines 31-34 and 1-15 at lines 1-8.
[12] Korab & Co Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources [1996] QLC 37.
[13] Moar v Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines and Energy [2004] QLC 67 at [7].
[14] Exhibit 13.
[15] Transcript 1-48, lines 16-32.
[16] I think that the Department may have made a mistake in the excerpt of the decision provided in paragraph [5] of its reply submissions. It refers to an incorrect Korab decision and the excerpt stops before reaching the key part.
[17] Gold Coast City Council v Sunland Group Ltd (2019) 1 QR 304 at [137] - [164]. See also Alexander & Ors v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority & Ors (2010) 233 FCR 575 at 586-595.
[18] [2004] QLC 67 at [7].
[19] And absent submissions about the practical effect of reasons not being requested by Mrs Stewart.
[20] Exhibit 3, paragraph 4.2 on page 10 of 31.
[21] Exhibit 4.
[22] Exhibit 2, “Site Specific Characteristics”.
[23] That is, additional to the amount that was subject to waterlogging prior to 2017/18.
[24] Transcript 1-55, line 44 to 1-56, line 13.
[25] Exhibit 4.
[26] See Exhibit 2, paragraph 5.
[27] Exhibit 5 at page 62.
[28] There was a second report from the same valuation company – Northern Property Valuers – on the Court file. The second report was signed by Ivona Carusi. It was Mr Jarred’s report that became Exhibit 3. The Ivona Carusi report was not admitted into evidence and I have not considered it.
[29] Transcript 1-7, line 47 to 1-8, line 2.
[30] Transcript 1-11, line 3.
[31] Transcript 1-11, lines 7-12.
[32] Exhibit 14, paragraph [43]. See also Transcript 1-94, line 2.
[33] Transcript 1-68, lines 7-8.
[34] Transcript 1-68, lines 10-11.
[35] Transcript 1-69, lines 33-45.
[36] Exhibit 5, Appendix 10, page 56.
[37] Exhibit 5, page 21.
[38] Exhibit 5, page 60.
[39] Exhibit 5, pages 9-10.
[40] Transcript 1-79, lines 6-13.
[41] Exhibit 5, page 16.
[42] Transcript 1-55, lines 24-42.
[43] (1947) 74 CLR 358 at 373-374.
[44] Exhibit 5, page 21: “The sale comprises a larger area than the subject and while superior on this metric, the land value is not assessed on a pro rata basis”.
[45] Exhibit 5, pages 17, 22. Cf Exhibit 5, page 21.
[46] Transcript 1-74, lines 17-18.
[47] Transcript 1-74, lines 38 to 1-75, line 11.
[48] Transcript 1-81, lines 33-37.
[49] Transcript 1-69, lines 28-35.
[50] There are some details in Mr Wilson’s evidence at Transcript 1-73, lines 5-17, but that only involved Mr Wilson commenting that he thought that a sale or sales were comparable.