ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer General

(2009) 165 LGERA 25; [2009] NSWCA 31

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Valuation of Land
2. › Land value
3. › Comparable sales method
4. › Selection of comparable sales
5. › Whether finding that sales were not comparable involved a question of law
6. › Whether single comparable sale sufficient
7. › Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW), s 6A
1. Valuation of Land
2. › Land value
3. › Comparable sales method
4. › Adjustment of improved sale
5. › Whether failure to deduct value of existing leases constituted error of valuation principle
6. › Distinction between deduction of capitalised income stream and deduction for letting-up period
1. Valuation of Land
2. › Land value
3. › Evidence
4. › Rejection of retail demographic evidence
5. › Whether rejection involved error of law
6. › Comparable sale subject to same demographic influences as subject land
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal on question of law
3. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 57(1)
4. › Distinction between appeal on question of law and appeal for error of law
5. › Whether decision vitiated by error

Quick Take

When deducing land value from the sale of an improved site using the comparable sales method, deduction of the capitalised income stream from existing leases in addition to the depreciated replacement cost of improvements is not required as a matter of valuation principle, because such a double deduction would wrongly exclude the land's contribution to the potential to generate income. Whether an additional adjustment for a letting-up period is warranted is a question of fact. The selection of comparable sales and the weight given to demographic evidence in the comparable sales method are questions of fact that do not give rise to questions of law on appeal under s 57(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW).