Malicki v Valuer General [2009] NSWLEC 1165

Malicki v Valuer General [2009] NSWLEC 1165

The Applicant did not discharge the onus under s 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 because his valuation approach relied on an appraisal of the improved property and estimated improvement costs rather than adequately applying comparable sales evidence. The Respondent's valuation of $410,000, though at the upper bounds of the supportable range, was supported by the evidence and was confirmed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 Against Land Value Assessed by the Valuer General / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; land value confirmed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['land Value' 'valuation Appeal' 'comparable Sales Evidence' 'onus of Proof']
['land Valuation' 'planning and Environment'] ['land Value' 'valuation Appeal' 'comparable Sales Evidence' 'onus of Proof']

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 Assessed by the Valuer General / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant proved that the land value of 43 Elouera Crescent, Forster as at 1st July 2007 was $360,000 rather than $410,000.' "Whether the comparable sales evidence and adjustments supported the Respondent's assessed land value." 'Whether issues raised by the Applicant about market trends, canal deterioration, lack of demand, construction costs and sales sample size justified a lower land value.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant did not discharge the onus under s 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 because his valuation approach relied on an appraisal of the improved property and estimated improvement costs rather than adequately applying comparable sales evidence. The Respondent's valuation of $410,000, though at the upper bounds of the supportable range, was supported by the evidence and was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; land value confirmed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The Appeal is dismissed.' 'The Land Value of $410,000 as at the base date of 1st July 2007 for the property known as 43 Elouera Crescent, Forster is confirmed.' 'No Order is made as to costs.' 'The exhibits are returned.']