Longreach Capital Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2007] NSWLEC 721

Longreach Capital Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2007] NSWLEC 721

The contract for sale could not reliably establish land value because it transferred land and buildings, included other land and chattels, and contained unusual special conditions inconsistent with the s 6A hypothesis. The respondent's comparable sales approach was sound, giving a s 6A value of $7,872,156. For the heritage valuation, hospital use had ceased before the relevant date; Longreach had acquired and used the land for redevelopment as an en globo development site. Section 123 did not justify deducting the cost of restoring buildings for an abandoned hospital use. A 50% deduction over the residentially zoned land, with no deduction for rural land, fairly reflected the heritage...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Land Value and Heritage Valuation Assessments / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The appeal was upheld.
Legal Topics
['land Value Under S 6 a of the Valuation of Land Act 1916' 'heritage Valuation Under S 125 of the Heritage Act 1977' 'reliability of Contract for Sale as Valuation Evidence' 'comparable Sales' 'purpose for Which Heritage Listed Land Was Used at Relevant Date' 'allowance for Heritage Valuation' 'cost of Restoring Improvements']
['valuation of Land' 'heritage' 'planning and Environment' 'rating and Taxing'] ['land Value Under S 6 a of the Valuation of Land Act 1916' 'heritage Valuation Under S 125 of the Heritage Act 1977' 'reliability of Contract for Sale as Valuation Evidence' 'comparable Sales' 'purpose for Which Heritage Listed Land Was Used at Relevant Date' 'allowance for Heritage Valuation' 'cost of Restoring Improvements']

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 Concerning Land Value and Heritage Valuation Assessments / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the April 2003 contract for sale to Longreach was reliable evidence of land value under s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.' 'How comparable sales should be used to determine the land value of the former Kenmore Hospital site.' 'Whether, for the heritage valuation, the land was used for the purpose of a hospital at the relevant date of 11 January 2006.' 'Whether s 123 of the Heritage Act 1977 required or permitted deduction of the cost of restoring buildings to enable hospital use.' 'What deduction, if any, should be made for the heritage valuation assumptions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The contract for sale could not reliably establish land value because it transferred land and buildings, included other land and chattels, and contained unusual special conditions inconsistent with the s 6A hypothesis. The respondent's comparable sales approach was sound, giving a s 6A value of $7,872,156. For the heritage valuation, hospital use had ceased before the relevant date; Longreach had acquired and used the land for redevelopment as an en globo development site. Section 123 did not justify deducting the cost of restoring buildings for an abandoned hospital use. A 50% deduction over the residentially zoned land, with no deduction for rural land, fairly reflected the heritage...

Court Disposition

The appeal was upheld.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'The value of the land is determined as $7,872,156 in accordance with s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.' 'The value of the land is determined as $4,163,356 in accordance with s 125 of the Heritage Act 1977.' 'The exhibits are returned.']