Hunters Hill Council v Peter Charles Cunningham, Valuer General of New South Wales & Ors [2005] NSWCA 185

Hunters Hill Council v Peter Charles Cunningham, Valuer General of New South Wales & Ors [2005] NSWCA 185

The appeal failed because the Council did not demonstrate that the Valuer General failed to act in accordance with valuation principle. Although the valuation report did not use the words "highest and best use", it plainly inquired into and took account of highest and best use before and after acquisition, including residential development and possible amalgamation with adjoining land. Any dispute about whether the valuer's assessment was correct did not establish that the determination was void.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Whether a Valuer General Compensation Determination for Compulsory Acquisition Was Void / New South Wales Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court Common Law Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['compensation for Acquisition of Part of Land' 'market Value' 'highest and Best Use' 'before and After Valuation Methodology' 'judicial Review of Valuer General Determination']
['compulsory Acquisition' 'valuation' 'administrative Law'] ['compensation for Acquisition of Part of Land' 'market Value' 'highest and Best Use' 'before and After Valuation Methodology' 'judicial Review of Valuer General Determination']

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 Concerning Whether a Valuer General Compensation Determination for Compulsory Acquisition Was Void / New South Wales Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Valuer General's determination of compensation was void because it was not made in accordance with valuation principle." 'Whether, in arriving at the market value of the acquired land, the Valuer General failed to take account of the highest and best use of the retained land.' 'Whether the valuation report failed to identify and have regard to comparable sales by reference to the highest and best use of the retained land.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Council did not demonstrate that the Valuer General failed to act in accordance with valuation principle. Although the valuation report did not use the words "highest and best use", it plainly inquired into and took account of highest and best use before and after acquisition, including residential development and possible amalgamation with adjoining land. Any dispute about whether the valuer's assessment was correct did not establish that the determination was void.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']