Falk v Valuer General [2005] NSWLEC 141

Falk v Valuer General [2005] NSWLEC 141

The applicant did not discharge the onus of proving that the valuation of $170,000 was too high. The Court gave no weight to the comparable statutory valuations relied on by the applicant and found the comparable sales material defeated the applicant's case. The respondent did not establish a basis for substituting the higher valuation of $275,000, particularly given the late and non-specific notice to the applicant and the illogical result of valuing the subject property far above adjacent superior properties. It was not fair and reasonable to order costs against the applicant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Valuation Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment on Appeal Against Disallowance of Objection to Land Valuation
Outcome
The determination disallowing the objection was confirmed and no order as to costs was made.
Legal Topics
['notice of Valuation' 'objection to Valuation' 'comparable Sales Evidence' 'statutory Land Valuations as Evidence' 'substitution of Higher Valuation' 'no Order as to Costs']
['valuation of Land' 'costs'] ['notice of Valuation' 'objection to Valuation' 'comparable Sales Evidence' 'statutory Land Valuations as Evidence' 'substitution of Higher Valuation' 'no Order as to Costs']

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 Valuation Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment on Appeal Against Disallowance of Objection to Land Valuation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant proved that the land value of $170,000 at base date 1 July 2003 for 18 Sims Street, Darlinghurst was too high.' 'Whether comparable statutory valuations of nearby properties should be given weight.' "Whether the Court should substitute the respondent's proposed higher valuation of $275,000." 'Whether it was fair and reasonable to order costs against the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not discharge the onus of proving that the valuation of $170,000 was too high. The Court gave no weight to the comparable statutory valuations relied on by the applicant and found the comparable sales material defeated the applicant's case. The respondent did not establish a basis for substituting the higher valuation of $275,000, particularly given the late and non-specific notice to the applicant and the illogical result of valuing the subject property far above adjacent superior properties. It was not fair and reasonable to order costs against the applicant.

Court Disposition

The determination disallowing the objection was confirmed and no order as to costs was made.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 40(1)(a) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, the determination dated 16 July 2004 to refuse the objection to the valuation at base date 1 July 2003 of $170,000 for the property at 18 Sims Street, Darlinghurst is confirmed.' 'The exhibits are returned.' 'No order as to costs.']