Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Valuer General [2001] NSWLEC 108

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Valuer General [2001] NSWLEC 108

The applicant did not prove that the $44 million valuation was erroneous. Its valuation approach was inconsistent with s 6A because it treated the subject property as requiring development consent and added hypothetical transferable heritage floor space despite the existing 13.4:1 floor space ratio. Its comparable sales analysis involved subjective adjustments and did not establish a fall in CBD land values, the absence of 1999 sales did not itself prove reduced market value, rental forecasts relied upon were not shown to be realistic, and the economic evidence did not establish a downturn that reduced Sydney CBD land values at the base date. The respondent's comparable sales evidence,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 Against a Land Valuation / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; valuation not varied.
Legal Topics
['land Value' 'comparable Sales Valuation' 'sydney CBD Commercial Property' 'economic Downturn and Property Values' 'valuation of Land Act 1916 S 6 A']
['valuation of Land' 'local Government and Planning' 'property Law'] ['land Value' 'comparable Sales Valuation' 'sydney CBD Commercial Property' 'economic Downturn and Property Values' 'valuation of Land Act 1916 S 6 A']

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 S 37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 Against a Land Valuation / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Valuer General's $44 million valuation of 378-394 George St Sydney as at 1 July 1999 was erroneous." 'Whether land values in the core precinct of the Sydney CBD had fallen by 25% to 40% between 1996/1997 and 1 July 1999.' 'Whether alleged falls in CBD rents, absence of 1999 development site sales, and economic conditions justified reducing the land value.' 'How s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 applied to the valuation of the subject property and its existing use and improvements.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not prove that the $44 million valuation was erroneous. Its valuation approach was inconsistent with s 6A because it treated the subject property as requiring development consent and added hypothetical transferable heritage floor space despite the existing 13.4:1 floor space ratio. Its comparable sales analysis involved subjective adjustments and did not establish a fall in CBD land values, the absence of 1999 sales did not itself prove reduced market value, rental forecasts relied upon were not shown to be realistic, and the economic evidence did not establish a downturn that reduced Sydney CBD land values at the base date. The respondent's comparable sales evidence,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; valuation not varied.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'Costs reserved.' 'Exhibits be returned.']