Gray v Valuer-General - [2005] NSWLEC 513

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:
Gray v Valuer-General [2005] NSWLEC 513

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Dr A B Gray
RESPONDENT
Valuer-General

FILE NUMBER(S):
05/30270 of 2005

CORAM:
Moore C

KEY ISSUES:
Valuation of Land :-

LEGISLATION CITED:
Valuation of Land Act 1916

CASES CITED:
Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2003) 212 CLR 111

DATES OF HEARING: 25 and 26 August 2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:
08/26/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
Ms A Pearman, barrister
INSTRUCTED BY
Crown Solicitor

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

MOORE C

26 August 2005

05/30270 Dr A B Gray v Valuer General
JUDGMENT

1 COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (the Act) against the valuation determined by the Valuer General for a property at 24 Waratah Crescent, Minnie Water (the site).

2 The applicant, Dr Gray, is a self-represented litigant and is not legally qualified. As a consequence of that I have provided to him the usual assistance which is provided by a member of this Court to an unrepresented litigant by explaining to Dr Gray the process that is to be followed and to ensure that he has had ample opportunity to present his case to the Court.

3 The statutory onus that applies in these proceedings is that which is set out in s 40(2) of the Act, namely, that the applicant has the onus to show why the valuation proposed by the Valuer General should be disturbed.

4 In these proceedings a novel path has been followed by Dr Gray’s as his initial position was that he wished to question the validity of the underlying basis of the valuation process adopted by the Valuer General and supported, in the evidence in these proceedings, by the independent valuation evidence put to the Court by Ms Chapman, who was commissioned to undertake the supporting revaluation process for these proceedings.

5 It is long settled (and recently confirmed by the High Court’s decision in Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2003) 212 CLR 111) that a comparative valuation process making relevant adjustments for positive and negative factors of comparison between properties is the appropriate and preferable course to be followed in undertaking a valuation assessment.

6 There are other alternatives permitted by valuation theory and adopted by courts over the years. These include capitalisation of rents and the like.

7 It is also clear from the decision of the High Court in Maurici that it is possible for a comparative valuation to be undertaken even when there is only one comparable sale of vacant land.

8 However, it is also long settled that in the absence of a broadly representative sample of vacant land from which a comparison can be drawn, it is appropriate to take developed land and notionally strip it of its improvements in order to read its undeveloped land value – this being the basis of the valuation process for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gray v Valuer-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NSWLEC 513
Decision Date: 08/26/2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dr A B Gray appealed a valuation of a property at 24 Waratah Crescent, Minnie Water, determined by the Valuer General. The appeal was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Dr Gray, was unrepresented and had to show why the proposed valuation should be disturbed. The court considered Dr Gray's arguments about the valuation process and his alternative statistical basis for assessing the comparable value of the property. The court found that Dr Gray had not discharged his onus of proof and rejected his arguments. The court also considered the expert evidence of Ms Chapman, who supported the Valuer General's valuation. The court concluded that the Valuer General's valuation was appropriate and dismissed the appeal. The court confirmed the valuation contended for by the Valuer General. The exhibits were returned.

The court examined the appropriateness of the comparative valuation process adopted by the Valuer General and supported by Ms Chapman. The court noted that a comparative valuation process making relevant adjustments for positive and negative factors of comparison between properties is the appropriate and preferable course to be followed in undertaking a valuation assessment. The court also considered Dr Gray's alternative statistical basis for assessing the comparable value of the property. However, the court found that the market had not moved uniformly over the relevant period of time and that applying a uniform average annual rate of increase would be inappropriate. The court rejected Dr Gray's arguments and concluded that he had not discharged his onus of proof. The court considered the expert evidence of Ms Chapman, who supported the Valuer General's valuation. The court concluded that the Valuer General's valuation was appropriate and dismissed the appeal. The court confirmed the valuation contended for by the Valuer General and returned the exhibits.

Orders