2025/394548
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 4/10/25 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 1.5 MB) |
| 21/11/25 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 5.1 MB) |
| 22/12/25 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 525.3 KB) |
| 27/1/26 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 1.2 MB) |
| 3/2/26 | Respondent | Certification for Publication (PDF, 329.4 KB) |
| 3/2/26 | Appellant | Certification for Publication (PDF, 448.2 KB) |
LAND & ENVIRONMENT – in 2023 Esperia Court Pty Ltd (Esperia) brought eight appeals pursuant to s 37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW) (Valuation Act) against the determinations by the Valuer General of New South Wales (Valuer General) of objections to the valuations of four adjoining parcels of land owned by Esperia at 1 The Boulevarde, 3-9 The Boulevarde, 2-10 Churchill Avenue and 12 Churchill Avenue in Strathfield as at the base valuation dates of 1 July 2021 and 1 July 2022 – Esperia relied upon the expert valuation evidence of Grahame Hollinshead and the expert town planning evidence of Jeff Mead – the Valuer General relied upon the expert valuation evidence of Andor Kabok and the expert town planning evidence of David Haskew – the primary judge received extensive documentary material including 21 expert reports and conducted a view of the properties and various other properties in Strathfield and Burwood, the sales of which were considered in the expert evidence – based on the selection and adjustment of comparable sales, the primary judge determined that each of the appeals against the determinations of the Valuer General should be upheld as Esperia satisfied its onus, as per section 40(2) of the Valuation Act, to prove that the value of the properties determined by the Valuer General was too high – whether the primary judge erred in valuation principle and thus, erred on a question of law, by placing equal weight on each of the comparable sales to determine the value of each of the parcels of land at the relevant dates; where all but one of the comparable sales were different parcels of land with different characteristics and where the task of the judicial valuer was to determine which of the comparable sales were the most reliable – whether the primary judge erred in valuation principle and thus, erred on a question of law, by determining a median and an average value for each of the comparable sales and then determining a value for the subject parcels of land as an amount between the median and average – whether the primary judge erred in law in failing to give any reasons at all for his determination of the value of the subject parcels at the relevant dates.
Last updated: