Haitzer v Valuer General [2009] NSWLEC 1125

Haitzer v Valuer General [2009] NSWLEC 1125

The Applicant did not discharge the onus under section 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 because his comparable sales valuation approach was insufficient, including inadequate and unsupported adjustments and no expert valuation evidence, while the Respondent's valuer presented a consistent comparable sales approach supporting $626,000. No allowance for profitable expenditure was made because only $15,555 of the claimed works appeared to fall within the statutory definition of land improvements, and the Applicant provided no evidence of enhancement in value resulting from those works.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 Against Land Value Assessment / Judgment After on Site Inspection and Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; land value confirmed; no allowance for profitable expenditure; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['land Value Assessment' 'comparable Sales Evidence' 'rural Residential Land' 'profitable Expenditure' 'land Improvements' 'onus of Proof on Valuation Appeal']
['valuation of Land' 'property Law' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['land Value Assessment' 'comparable Sales Evidence' 'rural Residential Land' 'profitable Expenditure' 'land Improvements' 'onus of Proof on Valuation Appeal']

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 Under Section 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 Against Land Value Assessment / Judgment After on Site Inspection and Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant proved that the land value of 2-8 Shadforth Road, Mount Wilson as at 1 July 2007 should be $377,000 rather than $626,000.' 'Whether an allowance for profitable expenditure should be made for works claimed by the Applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant did not discharge the onus under section 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 because his comparable sales valuation approach was insufficient, including inadequate and unsupported adjustments and no expert valuation evidence, while the Respondent's valuer presented a consistent comparable sales approach supporting $626,000. No allowance for profitable expenditure was made because only $15,555 of the claimed works appeared to fall within the statutory definition of land improvements, and the Applicant provided no evidence of enhancement in value resulting from those works.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; land value confirmed; no allowance for profitable expenditure; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The Appeal is dismissed.' 'The Land Value of $626,000 as at the base date of 1st July 2007 for the property at 2-8 Shadforth Road, Mount Wilson is confirmed.' 'No allowance is made for profitable expenditure.' 'No Order is made as to costs.' 'The exhibits are returned.']