Allan v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 1490

Allan v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 1490

The Applicant did not prove that the Valuer General's assessment was incorrect. The Court found Mr Sheales' approach to the comparable sales evidence more consistent and persuasive than Mr Minns' approach, particularly in relation to adjustments for improvements, and concluded that the Applicant had not discharged the onus under Section 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 Against Land Value Assessment / Judgment After Mediation Under Section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Further Hearing Under Section 34(3)(b)(ii) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Valuer General's land value confirmed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['land Value' 'comparable Sales Evidence' 'onus of Proof on Valuation Appeal' 'adjustments for Improvements, Location, Area and Time']
['valuation of Land' 'property Law' 'planning and Environment'] ['land Value' 'comparable Sales Evidence' 'onus of Proof on Valuation Appeal' 'adjustments for Improvements, Location, Area and Time']

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 Under Section 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 Against Land Value Assessment / Judgment After Mediation Under Section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Further Hearing Under Section 34(3)(b)(ii) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Valuer General's land value assessment of $2,030,000 for 111 Old Pittwater Road, Brookvale as at 1st July 2006 should be overturned." 'Whether the Applicant proved a lower land value of $1,850,000.' 'Whether the comparable sales evidence and adjustments relied on by the parties supported the competing valuations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant did not prove that the Valuer General's assessment was incorrect. The Court found Mr Sheales' approach to the comparable sales evidence more consistent and persuasive than Mr Minns' approach, particularly in relation to adjustments for improvements, and concluded that the Applicant had not discharged the onus under Section 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Valuer General's land value confirmed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The land value of $2,030,000 as at the base date of 1st July 2006 for the property at 111 Old Pittwater Road, Brookvale is confirmed.' 'No order is made as to costs.' 'The exhibit is returned.']