Robert Croft Holdings Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2018] NSWLEC 190

Robert Croft Holdings Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2018] NSWLEC 190

The Land was so highly constrained by access, parking, topography, foreshore and planning considerations that the hypothetical new development advanced by the Respondent was highly improbable and could not be accepted as the highest and best use. The highest and best use was the continuation of the existing residential flat building under s 6A(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. Using the closest available comparable sale, with limited adjustments for views, access and s 6A(2)(b) improvement capacity, the Court calculated a value of $1,681,290 and rounded it down to the issued land value of $1,680,000. The Applicant therefore failed to discharge the onus of proving that the issued...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Appeal Under S 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 Concerning Land Value Assessment / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Applicant's appeal dismissed; issued land value confirmed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['land Valuation Appeal' 'unimproved Land Value' 'highest and Best Use' 'application of S 6 A(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916' 'constrained Waterfront Land' 'comparable Sales Valuation' 'existing Use and Hypothetical Reinstatement of Improvements']
['valuation Law' 'planning and Environment Law' 'land Law'] ['land Valuation Appeal' 'unimproved Land Value' 'highest and Best Use' 'application of S 6 A(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916' 'constrained Waterfront Land' 'comparable Sales Valuation' 'existing Use and Hypothetical Reinstatement of 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

Class 3 Appeal Under S 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 Concerning Land Value Assessment / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the highest and best use of the Land was hypothetical new development or continuation of the existing residential flat building.' 'Whether s 6A(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 applied to the valuation exercise.' "Whether the comparable sales relied upon by the valuers supported the Applicant's contended value, the issued land value, or the Respondent's higher contended value." 'What adjustments should be made to comparable sales to assess the unimproved land value of the Land as at the 1 July 2015 base date.' 'Whether the Applicant discharged the onus under s 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 to disturb the issued land value.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Land was so highly constrained by access, parking, topography, foreshore and planning considerations that the hypothetical new development advanced by the Respondent was highly improbable and could not be accepted as the highest and best use. The highest and best use was the continuation of the existing residential flat building under s 6A(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. Using the closest available comparable sale, with limited adjustments for views, access and s 6A(2)(b) improvement capacity, the Court calculated a value of $1,681,290 and rounded it down to the issued land value of $1,680,000. The Applicant therefore failed to discharge the onus of proving that the issued...

Court Disposition

Applicant's appeal dismissed; issued land value confirmed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's appeal be dismissed." "In accordance with s 40(1)(a), the Valuer General's issued land value as at the July 2015 base date of $1,680,000 not be disturbed, therefore it is confirmed." 'There will be no order as to costs.']