Australian Postal Commission v Melbourne City Council

(2005) 14 VR 678; [2005] VSCA 295

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Valuation of Land
2. › Heritage-listed land
3. › Capital improved value, net annual value and site value
4. › Whether heritage-listed building to be valued as devoid of potential for change of use and improvement
5. › Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic), ss 2(8), 5A
1. Statutes
2. › Interpretation
3. › Plain and ordinary meaning
4. › Mischief rule
5. › Whether provision to be construed literally where plain meaning yields remarkable but not irrational result
6. › Whether provision would be otiose if not given its plain meaning
7. › Presumption against surplusage
8. › Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic), s 2(8)
1. Statutes
2. › Interpretation
3. › Inconsistency between provisions
4. › Non-obstante clause
5. › Effect of 'despite anything in this Act'
6. › Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic), ss 2(8), 5A

Quick Take

Section 2(8) of the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic) requires heritage-listed land to be valued on the basis that it may be used only for the purpose for which it was used at the date of valuation, excluding any potential for change of use, improvement, or alteration of heritage restrictions. This may result in heritage-listed properties being valued at nil where restoration costs exceed the value of the property in its existing permitted use. The decision of the Land Valuation Board of Review in Brenchley Gardens Pty Ltd & Ors and City of Caulfield, which had allowed for potential change, was not followed.