Gray v Valuer-General [2005] NSWLEC 513

Gray v Valuer-General [2005] NSWLEC 513

The applicant did not discharge the onus under s 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 to show the Valuer General's valuation should be disturbed. Even if the onus had been discharged, a comparative analysis would not warrant disturbing the valuation of $500,000 as it is supported by the comparables and expert evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; valuation confirmed
Legal Topics
['valuation of Land' 'appeal Against Valuation' 'comparative Valuation Process' 'onus of Proof']
['valuation Law'] ['valuation of Land' 'appeal Against Valuation' 'comparative Valuation Process' 'onus of Proof']

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

Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the valuation determined by the Valuer General for 24 Waratah Crescent, Minnie Water, should be disturbed' 'Whether the applicant has discharged the onus under s 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 to show why the valuation should be changed']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not discharge the onus under s 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 to show the Valuer General's valuation should be disturbed. Even if the onus had been discharged, a comparative analysis would not warrant disturbing the valuation of $500,000 as it is supported by the comparables and expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; valuation confirmed

Orders

  • ['The valuation determined by the Valuer General is confirmed pursuant to s 40(1)(a) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.' 'Exhibits are returned.']