Tenstat Pty Limited v Valuer General Woolworths Limited v Valuer General [2012] NSWLEC 1361

Tenstat Pty Limited v Valuer General Woolworths Limited v Valuer General [2012] NSWLEC 1361

The appropriate land value for the subject property as at the Base Date is $25,000,000, based on the relevant comparable sales evidence and transparent adjustment and application process demonstrated in the evidence of Mr Lunney for Woolworths; the methodology of Mr Dempsey and Mr Maundrell was held not sufficiently logical, clear, or transparent for acceptance.

Parties
First Applicant: Tenstat Pty Limited; Second Applicant: Woolworths Limited; Respondent: Valuer General
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Valuation Appeal / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Tenstat appeal dismissed; Woolworths appeal upheld; land value set at $25,000,000; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Land Value Assessment, Comparable Sales Approach, Appeal Under Valuation of Land Act 1916
Valuation of Land Land Value Assessment Comparable Sales Approach Appeal Under Valuation of Land Act 1916

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenstat Pty Limited

First Applicant

Woolworths Limited

Second Applicant

Valuer General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Valuation Appeal / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper land value of 2-39 Dursley Road, Yennora as at 1 July 2010?
  2. 2 Should adjustments for the 'watercourse', 'severed land', and 'handle area' affect land value?
  3. 3 What appropriate method should be applied: comparable sales, rental evidence, or other?

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate land value for the subject property as at the Base Date is $25,000,000, based on the relevant comparable sales evidence and transparent adjustment and application process demonstrated in the evidence of Mr Lunney for Woolworths; the methodology of Mr Dempsey and Mr Maundrell was held not sufficiently logical, clear, or transparent for acceptance.

Court Disposition

Tenstat appeal dismissed; Woolworths appeal upheld; land value set at $25,000,000; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal by the First Applicant, Tenstat, is dismissed.
  • The appeal by the Second Applicant, Woolworths, is upheld.