Capaldo v Capaldo - [2011] SASCFC 115

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court: Civil)
CAPALDO v CAPALDO & ORS
[2011] SASCFC 115
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice Peek)
21 October 2011
REAL PROPERTY - VALUATION OF LAND - METHODS OF VALUATION - GENERALLY
Appeal of a decision of a Judge of this Court on a preliminary issue - where the parties agreed that the land at 4 Montacute Road, Hectorville should be valued utilising the capitalisation methodology - where the Judge adopted that methodology and valued the land - whether the Judge erred in assessing the value of the land - in particular, whether the Judge disregarded relevant and probative valuation evidence, failed to have proper regard to evidence led in the trial and made errors of calculation.
Appeal dismissed - the valuation arrived at by the Judge was supported by evidence, was not permeated by error and did not lead to an erroneous valuation.
Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) s 69, s 83, referred to.
Capaldo v Capaldo & Ors [2011] SASC 28; Commissioners of Succession Duties (SA) v Executor Trustee and Agency Co of South Australia Ltd (1947) 74 CLR 358; Commonwealth v Reeve (1949) 78 CLR 410; Emerald Quarry Industries Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (SA) (1978) 142 CLR 351; Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth v St Helen's Farm (ACT) Pty Ltd (1980) 146 CLR 336; Crompton v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 5 SASR 301; Robinson Brothers (Brewers) Ltd v Assessment Committee for the No 7 or Houghton and Chester-le-Street Area of the County of Durham [1937] 2 KB 445; Arcus Shopfitters v Western Australian Planning Commission (2002) 125 LGERA 180; Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Blacktown City Council [2007] NSWCA 20; Garton Hunter (Valuation Officer) [1969] 2 QB 37, considered.

CAPALDO v CAPALDO & ORS
[2011] SASCFC 115
GRAY J:

In the primary proceedings before this Court orders are sought for partition of land at Montacute Road, Hectorville, and alternatively, for the sale of the land and the distribution of the proceeds between the registered owners of the land.[1] The decision under appeal related to a preliminary issue – the value of the land the subject of the proceedings.
[1] Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) sections 69, 83.
The subject land is situate at 4 Montacute Road with frontage but no current access to Montacute Road. The land has an area of 1584 square metres. The subject land is contiguous with land at 16 Glynburn Road and has been incorporated with that land into what is known as the Glynde Hardware Store site. The subject land is leased to Capaldo Investments Pty Ltd, the entity that operates the hardware store. The lease commenced on 1 July 2010 for a term of five years with an option to renew for a further term of five years. The subject land is utilised as the garden…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Capaldo v Capaldo

Details

AGLC: Capaldo v Capaldo [2011] SASCFC 115
Case: [2011] SASCFC 115
Decision Date: 21 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerned the valuation of land at 4 Montacute Road, Hectorville. The parties had agreed that the capitalisation methodology should be used for the valuation. The primary judge had adopted this methodology and determined the land's value. The appellants argued that the primary judge erred in assessing this value, specifically by disregarding relevant valuation evidence, failing to properly consider trial evidence, and making calculation errors.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the primary judge had erred in their assessment of the land's value, given the agreed valuation methodology. This involved determining if the judge had properly considered all probative evidence and if any calculation errors had occurred that would lead to an erroneous valuation.

The Full Court, comprising Gray, Sulan, and Peek JJ, dismissed the appeal. Gray J, whose reasons were adopted by Sulan and Peek JJ, found that the valuation arrived at by the primary judge was supported by the evidence. His Honour noted that an allowance of $50,000, representing approximately a seven per cent premium on the otherwise determined value of $800,000, was within the judge's discretion for assessing special value. The Court concluded that the primary judge's valuation was not permeated by error and did not result in an erroneous outcome.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The Judge made an allowance of $50,000.00 on this account. This represents a premium of about seven per cent on the otherwise value of $800,000.00 and was well within the discretion of the Judge when assessing special value.Conclusion I consider that the valuation arrived at by the Judge was supported by the evidence and was not permeated by error and did not lead to an erroneous valuation. I would dismiss the appeal. SULAN J: I agree with the reasons of Gray J. I would dismiss the appeal. PEEK J: I would dismiss the appeal for the reasons given by Gray J.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.