In Adam Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2011] NSWLEC 55

In Adam Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2011] NSWLEC 55

The heritage cost penalty—the difference in construction costs between a new existing heritage restricted building and a new non-heritage restricted building—should be deducted in determining land value under s 14G(1)(b1) of the Valuation of Land Act, as failure to do so imposes an inappropriate penalty not contemplated by the statute. The Commissioners erred in law by not making this deduction and by misconstruing its nature as a double dipping allowance.

Parties
Applicant: In Adam Pty Ltd; Respondent: Valuer-General
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Valuation of Heritage Restricted Land, Application of Heritage Cost Penalty, Interpretation of S 14 G(1)(b1) Valuation of Land Act
Land Valuation Heritage Law Valuation of Heritage Restricted Land Application of Heritage Cost Penalty Interpretation of S 14 G(1)(b1) Valuation of Land Act

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

In Adam Pty Ltd

Applicant

Valuer-General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 3 Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a deduction for a 'heritage cost penalty' should be made under s 14G(1)(b1) of the Valuation of Land Act
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioners erred by finding that allowing both an uplift factor and a heritage cost penalty constituted double dipping

Ratio Decidendi

The heritage cost penalty—the difference in construction costs between a new existing heritage restricted building and a new non-heritage restricted building—should be deducted in determining land value under s 14G(1)(b1) of the Valuation of Land Act, as failure to do so imposes an inappropriate penalty not contemplated by the statute. The Commissioners erred in law by not making this deduction and by misconstruing its nature as a double dipping allowance.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • The appeals are allowed.
  • The parties are to bring in draft orders in each matter within two working days to reflect the Court's decision.