AMP Henderson Global Investors v Valuer-General

AMP Henderson Global Investors (the appellants) appealed to the Court of Appeal from decisions of the Land and Environment Court concerning the valuation of commercial CBD properties. The primary judge had dismissed the appellants' appeals against the Valuer-General's (the respondent) assessments of land value, and had ordered that each party bear their own costs. The appellants contended that the primary judge had erred in law in his determination of the valuation issues. The respondent sought leave to cross-appeal on the question of costs.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in law in his approach to determining the value of the land component of improved sales, particularly in relation to the deduction of the value of improvements and the depreciation applied thereto. The court was also required to consider whether the primary judge had erred in law in his selection and treatment of comparable sales, including the relevance of sales occurring after the valuation base date and the adjustments required for economic conditions and market changes.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's reasoning contained inconsistencies and errors of law. Specifically, the court noted that the primary judge appeared to reject certain historic land sales relied upon by the Valuer-General on the basis of their remoteness in time, while simultaneously acknowledging that the market conditions had changed between the period of those sales and the base date. The court also observed that the primary judge had not adequately addressed the requirement for evidence to demonstrate that economic circumstances and land values had not changed between the base date and the date of any subsequent comparable sales. The court considered that the primary judge's approach to deducing the land value component from improved sales, by deducting the value of improvements calculated on a cost less depreciation basis, required further scrutiny in light of the evidence presented.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the primary judge, and remitted the matters to the Land and Environment Court for redetermination in accordance with the Court of Appeal's decision. The respondent's applications for leave to cross-appeal on costs were dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeals and the cross-appeal applications.