LAWS v COLLINS EXPOSED AGGREGATE PTY LTD and ANOR [1997] NSWCA 186

LAWS v COLLINS EXPOSED AGGREGATE PTY LTD and ANOR [1997] NSWCA 186

The trial judge erred by accepting a valuation method that did not appropriately consider the evidence regarding the presence and value of gravel, comparable sales, and the risks and probabilities attached to development approval. The correct approach was to consider rural value plus a properly discounted value of the gravel, resulting in a lower aggregate valuation.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Laws; First Respondent/defendant/cross Claimant: Collins Exposed Aggregate Pty Ltd; Second Respondent/defendant/cross Defendant: second respondent/defendant/cross defendant (solicitors)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal Decision After Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgments for plaintiff and cross claimant set aside. Substitute judgments entered for $443,589 with effect from 19 November 1993. Cross appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Damages for Loss of Bargain, Valuation Methodology, Development Approval and Risk Discounts, Cross Claim for Professional Negligence
Contract Damages Valuation of Land Sale of Land Damages for Loss of Bargain Valuation Methodology Development Approval and Risk Discounts Cross Claim for Professional Negligence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laws

Appellant/plaintiff

Collins Exposed Aggregate Pty Ltd

First Respondent/defendant/cross Claimant

second respondent/defendant/cross defendant (solicitors)

Second Respondent/defendant/cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal Decision After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the proper method for valuing land containing commercial gravel where no development approval exists?
  2. 2 Should the allowance for risk of not obtaining development approval and the proper market value of the land include the value of the gravel deposits?
  3. 3 Was the assessment of damages for loss of bargain correctly conducted by the trial judge?

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by accepting a valuation method that did not appropriately consider the evidence regarding the presence and value of gravel, comparable sales, and the risks and probabilities attached to development approval. The correct approach was to consider rural value plus a properly discounted value of the gravel, resulting in a lower aggregate valuation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgments for plaintiff and cross claimant set aside. Substitute judgments entered for $443,589 with effect from 19 November 1993. Cross appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgments for the plaintiff against the first defendant and for the cross claimant against the cross defendant except as to costs set aside.