Barrett v Valuer General [2015] NSWLEC 1141

Barrett v Valuer General [2015] NSWLEC 1141

The Applicant failed to discharge the onus of proof under s40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 to demonstrate that the Respondent's valuation was incorrect. The Respondent's methodology, based on comparable sales and standard valuation practice, provided transparent and credible evidence supporting the assessed land value, which was therefore confirmed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['land Value' 'comparable Sales' 'statutory Valuation' 'onus of Proof' 'methodology of Valuation']
['valuation of Land'] ['land Value' 'comparable Sales' 'statutory Valuation' 'onus of Proof' 'methodology of Valuation']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Valuer General's assessed land value of 115 Chelmsford Street, Newtown as at 1 July 2012 was correct under the Valuation of Land Act 1916" "Whether Applicant demonstrated error in the Respondent's assessment and methodology"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant failed to discharge the onus of proof under s40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 to demonstrate that the Respondent's valuation was incorrect. The Respondent's methodology, based on comparable sales and standard valuation practice, provided transparent and credible evidence supporting the assessed land value, which was therefore confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The Land Value for the property known as 115 Chelmsford Street, Newtown as at the base date of 1 July 2012 is $385,000.' 'No order is made as to costs.' 'The exhibits are returned.']