Background
Point Piper One Pty Ltd challenged the Valuer General’s land valuations for three valuation years concerning 92 Wolseley Road, Point Piper, and an adjoining maritime lease area below the high-water mark. The waterfront property comprised a strata parcel improved with a five-level, two-unit residential building, parking, an indoor pool, a tennis court and gardens. The parties agreed that the highest and best use of the land above the high-water mark was residential use, including dual occupancy.
The valuations under appeal were $76.8 million for 2022, $76.8 million for 2023 and, after partial allowance of the owner’s objection, $80 million for 2024. The owner argued that the valuations were too high and that the strata land and maritime lease area should not have been included in one valuation. The parties’ valuation experts differed substantially over the appropriate comparable sales, treatment of improvements, market movement, site-size adjustments, inclusion of the maritime lease area and valuation methodology.
The Court’s Holding
The Court dismissed all three appeals. It held that valuing the strata parcel and the maritime lease area together was consistent with the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW), so there was no basis to remit the matter to the Valuer General for separate valuation.
After independently evaluating the competing expert evidence, the Court accepted neither expert’s valuation in full. Its adjusted analysis of the three comparable sales produced values above each challenged valuation, and it found that the owner had not discharged its statutory onus of proving that any valuation was too high. That conclusion applied even to 2022, for which the Valuer General had conceded that the issued value was too high: the Court held that the concession did not itself satisfy the owner’s burden or displace the decision under appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant in a NSW land-valuation appeal bears the burden of proving its case, including that the challenged valuation is too high.
- The Valuer General’s concession that a valuation is excessive does not automatically establish the appellant’s proposed value or require the Court to reduce the valuation.
- On a rehearing, the Court may evaluate the valuation evidence independently and is not compelled to adopt either party’s proposed figure.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a valuation appeal is not won merely by exposing disagreement within the Valuer General’s case. The landowner must present evidence sufficient to prove that the operative valuation should be displaced.
It also illustrates the Court’s practical scrutiny of comparable sales and valuation adjustments for exceptional waterfront property, including development constraints, site size, views, waterfront characteristics, improvements and land below the high-water mark.