Rifon 2 Pty Ltd –v- Valuer General [2010] NSWLEC 1115

Rifon 2 Pty Ltd –v- Valuer General [2010] NSWLEC 1115

The Applicant did not present a valuation approach sufficient to discharge its onus under Section 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, and the Respondent's valuations at the 2007 and 2008 base dates were supportable having regard to the comparable sales evidence and the differences between those sales and the subject property.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 Against Land Value Assessments / Judgment After on Site Inspection and Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Respondent's land values confirmed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['land Value Appeal' 'highest and Best Use' 'direct Comparison Valuation Method' 'comparable Sales Evidence' 'onus of Proof' 'adjustment of Comparable Sales']
['valuation of Land' 'property Law' 'planning and Environment'] ['land Value Appeal' 'highest and Best Use' 'direct Comparison Valuation Method' 'comparable Sales Evidence' 'onus of Proof' 'adjustment of Comparable Sales']

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 Assessments / Judgment After on Site Inspection and Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Valuer General's land values for 23-31 Darlinghurst Road, Kings Cross as at 1 July 2007 and 1 July 2008 should be disturbed." 'Whether the Applicant proved its case under Section 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.' 'What highest and best use should be adopted for valuation purposes.' 'Which comparable sales were relevant and how they should be adjusted for valuation of the subject property.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant did not present a valuation approach sufficient to discharge its onus under Section 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, and the Respondent's valuations at the 2007 and 2008 base dates were supportable having regard to the comparable sales evidence and the differences between those sales and the subject property.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Respondent's land values confirmed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The Appeal is dismissed.' 'The Land Values of $5,600,000 as at the base date of 1 st July 2007 and $5,770,000 as at the base date of 1 st July 2008 for the property known as 23-31 Darlinghurst Road, Kings Cross are confirmed.' 'No Order is made as to costs.' 'The exhibits are returned.']