AMP Henderson Global Investors Ltd and Ors v Valuer-General [2006] NSWLEC 16

AMP Henderson Global Investors Ltd and Ors v Valuer-General [2006] NSWLEC 16

The referees' report disclosed no error of law, valuation principle, manifest unreasonableness or other basis for rejection. The referees were entitled after remitter to consider the evidence afresh, to use the historic sales after comparing economic and property market changes, to prefer those land sales over improved sales requiring numerous subjective adjustments, to adopt the depreciation approach used for 200 George Street in its specific redevelopment context, to use excavation cost as evidence of value, to find no evidentiary basis for a scarcity premium, and to reject 232 Pitt Street because of its required adjustments and inferior comparability. The report was therefore adopted...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Valuation of Land Appeals / Proceedings Remitted by the New South Wales Court of Appeal; Motion to Adopt Referees' Report Under Pt 72 R 13 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970
Outcome
Referees' Report adopted in whole; applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
["adoption of Referee's Report" 'comparable Sales' 'historic Sales' 'improved Sales' 'depreciation' 'excavation as Land Improvement' 'scarcity Premium' 'issue Estoppel']
['valuation of Land' 'civil Procedure'] ["adoption of Referee's Report" 'comparable Sales' 'historic Sales' 'improved Sales' 'depreciation' 'excavation as Land Improvement' 'scarcity Premium' 'issue Estoppel']

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 Appeals / Proceedings Remitted by the New South Wales Court of Appeal; Motion to Adopt Referees' Report Under Pt 72 R 13 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the referees' report should be adopted under Pt 72 r 13 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970." 'Whether the referees erred in using historic sales from 1995-1997 as comparable sales.' 'Whether the referees erred in rejecting improved sales as comparables.' 'Whether the referees erred in using straight line depreciation for 200 George Street.' 'Whether the referees erred by treating the cost of excavation as the value of excavation added to the land.' 'Whether the referees erred by finding no scarcity premium.' 'Whether the referees erred in rejecting 232 Pitt Street as a comparable sale.']

Ratio Decidendi

The referees' report disclosed no error of law, valuation principle, manifest unreasonableness or other basis for rejection. The referees were entitled after remitter to consider the evidence afresh, to use the historic sales after comparing economic and property market changes, to prefer those land sales over improved sales requiring numerous subjective adjustments, to adopt the depreciation approach used for 200 George Street in its specific redevelopment context, to use excavation cost as evidence of value, to find no evidentiary basis for a scarcity premium, and to reject 232 Pitt Street because of its required adjustments and inferior comparability. The report was therefore adopted...

Court Disposition

Referees' Report adopted in whole; applications dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The report of the Honourable John Clarke QC and Peter Inglis dated 11 August 2005 ("the Referees\' Report") be adopted.' 'The applications be dismissed.' 'Costs reserved.' "The exhibits be returned, except the Referees' Report."]