MacCormick, J.C. & Anor v. Nowland, H.A. & Ors [1987] FCA 594

MacCormick, J.C. & Anor v. Nowland, H.A. & Ors [1987] FCA 594

The value of the property at the date of sale was $195,000, which is $15,000 less than the price paid ($210,000), due to differences in actual composition and adjacency to the park. Evidence did not establish any significant increase in value since the date of sale. Mr. Slater's methodology and valuation were preferred, except the full amount of deduction claimed for park adjacency.

Parties
Applicant: James Clayton MacCormick; Applicant: Marusia MacCormick; First Respondent: Henry Alfred Nowland; First Respondent: Mavis Jean Nowland; Second Respondent: Cornish Simes & Williams Pty. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory; Determination of Valuation
Outcome
Case adjourned for mention; costs of today's proceedings are applicants' costs in the proceedings
Legal Topics
Valuation of Property, Misleading Statements, Evidence From Valuers
Misrepresentation Property Law Valuation of Property Misleading Statements Evidence From Valuers

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Clayton MacCormick

Applicant

Marusia MacCormick

Applicant

Henry Alfred Nowland

First Respondent

Mavis Jean Nowland

First Respondent

Cornish Simes & Williams Pty. Ltd.

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory; Determination of Valuation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the value of the house at the date of sale, given alleged misleading statements as to its composition and park adjacency?
  2. 2 Is there a difference in value between a solid brick house and a concrete block house, and does park adjacency affect value?

Ratio Decidendi

The value of the property at the date of sale was $195,000, which is $15,000 less than the price paid ($210,000), due to differences in actual composition and adjacency to the park. Evidence did not establish any significant increase in value since the date of sale. Mr. Slater's methodology and valuation were preferred, except the full amount of deduction claimed for park adjacency.

Court Disposition

Case adjourned for mention; costs of today's proceedings are applicants' costs in the proceedings

Orders

  • Costs of today's proceedings be the applicants' costs in the proceedings
  • The matter be adjourned to a date for mention