Peter John Earl v Valuer General [2003] NSWLEC 326

Peter John Earl v Valuer General [2003] NSWLEC 326

The unchallenged report of Mr Hood, a registered valuer, followed reasonable valuation methodology by using comparative sales and differentiating between clear grazing land, undulating land and hilly land, and confirmed that the Valuer General valuation was not too high; the Court therefore accepted that evidence and dismissed the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Valuation of Land Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['valuation of Land' 'comparative Sales Methodology' 'valuer General Valuation']
['land Valuation'] ['valuation of Land' 'comparative Sales Methodology' 'valuer General 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

Valuation of Land Appeal / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Valuer General's valuation of the land was too high."]

Ratio Decidendi

The unchallenged report of Mr Hood, a registered valuer, followed reasonable valuation methodology by using comparative sales and differentiating between clear grazing land, undulating land and hilly land, and confirmed that the Valuer General valuation was not too high; the Court therefore accepted that evidence and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['That the appeal is dismissed.' "The exhibits remain on the Court's file."]