Scambiaterra v Valuer General [2003] NSWLEC 339

Scambiaterra v Valuer General [2003] NSWLEC 339

The applicant did not discharge the onus under s40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 to displace the Valuer General's valuation. The Court preferred the respondent valuer's broad approach and, even when considering the applicant's methodology 3A with adjustments, was not comfortably satisfied that the $755,000 valuation should be varied. Methodology 3B was not accepted because the depreciated building value of $225 per square metre lacked a demonstrably rational evidentiary basis. The valuation of $755,000 as at 1 July 2000 was therefore confirmed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Valuation of Land Pursuant to S37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; valuation confirmed.
Legal Topics
['permissible Use for Valuation' 'highest and Best Use' 'valuation Methodology' 'onus of Proof on Valuation Appeal' 'special Uses a Zoning Under IDO 25 City of Campbelltown']
['valuation of Land' 'planning and Land Use'] ['permissible Use for Valuation' 'highest and Best Use' 'valuation Methodology' 'onus of Proof on Valuation Appeal' 'special Uses a Zoning Under IDO 25 City of Campbelltown']

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 Against Valuation of Land Pursuant to S37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant displaced the Valuer General's valuation of the two Claymore allotments as at 1 July 2000." 'What highest and best use was lawfully permitted for the site under the 5(a) Special Uses A zoning and the scarlet lettering "Local Centre".' "Whether the Court should prefer the respondent valuer's comparative sales and mixed-use valuation approach or the applicant valuer's methodologies 3A and 3B." "Whether deductions for easements, right of carriageway reconstruction, selling costs, profit and risk, and other development costs were justified in the applicant's valuation methodology."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not discharge the onus under s40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 to displace the Valuer General's valuation. The Court preferred the respondent valuer's broad approach and, even when considering the applicant's methodology 3A with adjustments, was not comfortably satisfied that the $755,000 valuation should be varied. Methodology 3B was not accepted because the depreciated building value of $225 per square metre lacked a demonstrably rational evidentiary basis. The valuation of $755,000 as at 1 July 2000 was therefore confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; valuation confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Pursuant to s 40(1)(a) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, the valuation as at 1 July 2000 for lot 503 Deposited Plan 263776 and lot 100 Deposited Plan 852796 of $755,000 is confirmed.' 'The exhibits are returned.']