Eddie Michael Awad & anor v Twin Creek Properties Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 920

Eddie Michael Awad & anor v Twin Creek Properties Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 920

The opinions of value as at 4 August 2010 were irrelevant and inadmissible because sales evidence five years after the relevant purchase date was too remote and there was sales evidence closer to the relevant date. The valuation opinions as at 18 February 2005 were relevant to potential damages under the Trade Practices Act and were admissible because the valuer had sufficiently exposed his reasoning process to permit testing in cross-examination; the absence of further explanation for the ten percent allowances did not necessarily mean the opinions were not based on specialised knowledge, study, training or experience.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Ex Tempore Ruling on Admissibility of Valuation Report
Outcome
Valuer's report admitted except for opinions of value as at 4 August 2010.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'valuation of Land' 'relevance' 'misrepresentation Damages']
['evidence' 'equity' 'trade Practices' 'real Property Valuation'] ['expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'valuation of Land' 'relevance' 'misrepresentation Damages']

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

Procedural and Other Rulings / Ex Tempore Ruling on Admissibility of Valuation Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether valuation opinions as at 4 August 2010 were relevant to the proceeding.' "Whether the valuer's opinions as at 18 February 2005 were admissible under the exception to the opinion rule for specialised knowledge." 'Whether the valuer sufficiently exposed the reasoning underlying a ten percent allowance for each alleged representation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The opinions of value as at 4 August 2010 were irrelevant and inadmissible because sales evidence five years after the relevant purchase date was too remote and there was sales evidence closer to the relevant date. The valuation opinions as at 18 February 2005 were relevant to potential damages under the Trade Practices Act and were admissible because the valuer had sufficiently exposed his reasoning process to permit testing in cross-examination; the absence of further explanation for the ten percent allowances did not necessarily mean the opinions were not based on specialised knowledge, study, training or experience.

Court Disposition

Valuer's report admitted except for opinions of value as at 4 August 2010.

Orders

  • ['Those parts of paragraphs 23 from 23.20-23.27, and the second parts of paragraphs 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3 referring to values "as at the date of this valuation", were inadmissible under (NSW) Evidence Act 1995, s 56(2).' 'Subject to those specific objections, the report was admitted.']