Players Pty Ltd v The Corporation of the City of Adelaide No. SCCIV-99-1273

[2001] SASC 369

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Real Property
2. › Valuation of Land
3. › Annual value
4. › Licensed premises
5. › Hypothetical tenancy
6. › Whether hypothetical tenant assumed to hold liquor and gaming licences
7. › Whether turnover an appropriate basis for assessment
8. › Valuation of Land Act 1971 (SA), s 5
1. Real Property
2. › Valuation of Land
3. › Statutory values
4. › Definition of annual value
5. › Whether five per cent of capital value is prescribed minimum or alternative to gross annual rental
6. › Legislative history
7. › Valuation of Land Act 1971 (SA), s 5(1)
1. Real Property
2. › Valuation of Land
3. › Fixtures
4. › Tenant's trade fixtures
5. › Whether items excluded from assessment
6. › Valuation of Land Regulations 1991 (SA), reg 10(1)(a)
1. Appeal
2. › Nature of appeal
3. › Appeal against valuation assessment
4. › Appeal de novo
5. › Standard of intervention
6. › Whether appellant must demonstrate error in principle or application
7. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 applied by analogy
8. › Local Government Act 1934 (SA), s 173(14)

Quick Take

The definition of 'annual value' in s 5(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1971 (SA) prescribes five per cent of capital value as a minimum, not as a true alternative to three-quarters of the gross annual rental. When valuing licensed premises, the hypothetical tenant is to be assumed to hold the relevant licences where it is reasonable to conclude they could be obtained. Turnover is only one of several factors relevant to assessing rental and should not be relied upon exclusively; profitability is a more reliable guide. When comparing licensed premises, it is relevant to enquire whether the licence is controlled by the landlord or the tenant.