Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue concerning the unimproved value of the appellant's waterfront land at Hunters Hill, Sydney. The dispute centred on the method used by the Chief Commissioner's valuer to determine this unimproved value, with the appellant arguing that the valuer had improperly confined his analysis to sales of scarce, unimproved land.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether section 6A(1) of the *Valuation of Land Act 1916* (NSW) permitted a valuer to determine the unimproved value of improved land by having regard exclusively or virtually exclusively to sales of scarce unimproved parcels in the same locality. This involved considering the relevance of "scarcity" in land valuation and whether the valuer had acted rationally and in accordance with the statutory duty to make a fair estimate of the land's value.

The High Court reasoned that the respondent's valuer had ignored a fundamental principle of assessment by being unreasonably selective in confining his analysis to a limited number of sales of scarce vacant land. The Court held that a fair estimate of value requires a reasonably representative group of comparable sales, which cannot be achieved by excluding sales of improved land, particularly in areas where vacant land is scarce. The Court found that the approach taken by the valuer was not mandated by the Act and that the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation of relevant precedent.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and ordering that the appeal from the Land and Environment Court be dismissed with costs. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the High Court and the Court of Appeal.