Averala Pty Ltd v Valuer General (No 2) [2006] NSWLEC 342

Averala Pty Ltd v Valuer General (No 2) [2006] NSWLEC 342

The sale of 24 Norfolk Place, time adjusted to $355,000 as at the base date, was the primary and sufficient comparable sale because the same market would stand for 23, 23A and 24 Norfolk Place. Sales such as 26A Michael Street and 2B Charles Street were of a different character and were excluded. The respondent's global adjustment methodology was acceptable, but his adjustments understated the disadvantages of 23 and 23A, while the applicant's adjustments and per square metre approach overstated them by failing to give sufficient weight to the value of a residential building entitlement. Taking account of usable area, construction access and construction difficulties, fill, shape, and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Appeal Against Land Valuations Under S 37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; substituted valuations ordered.
Legal Topics
['comparable Sales Valuation' 'valuation Roll Objections' 'burden of Proof on Valuation Appeal' "court's Powers on Class 3 Appeal" 'expert Valuation Evidence']
['valuation of Land' 'administrative Law' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['comparable Sales Valuation' 'valuation Roll Objections' 'burden of Proof on Valuation Appeal' "court's Powers on Class 3 Appeal" 'expert Valuation Evidence']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 3 Appeal Against Land Valuations Under S 37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What land values should be entered on the valuation roll as at 1 July 2004 for 23 Norfolk Place and 23A Norfolk Place, North Richmond.' 'Whether 24 Norfolk Place was an appropriate primary comparable sale and how it should be time adjusted.' 'Whether other sales, including 26A Michael Street and 2B Charles Street, should be excluded as insufficiently comparable.' "Whether the Court could adopt its own valuation assessment rather than accept either valuer's final figure."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sale of 24 Norfolk Place, time adjusted to $355,000 as at the base date, was the primary and sufficient comparable sale because the same market would stand for 23, 23A and 24 Norfolk Place. Sales such as 26A Michael Street and 2B Charles Street were of a different character and were excluded. The respondent's global adjustment methodology was acceptable, but his adjustments understated the disadvantages of 23 and 23A, while the applicant's adjustments and per square metre approach overstated them by failing to give sufficient weight to the value of a residential building entitlement. Taking account of usable area, construction access and construction difficulties, fill, shape, and the...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; substituted valuations ordered.

Orders

  • ['Substitute a valuation of $275,000 for 23 Norfolk Place, North Richmond, as at the base date.' 'Substitute a valuation of $260,000 for 23A Norfolk Place, North Richmond, as at the base date.' 'Exhibits returned.']