Anastasios Prilis v Valuer-General [2022] NSWLEC 11

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Anastasios Prilis v Valuer-General [2022] NSWLEC 11 Hearing dates: 7, 8 and 14 October 2021 Date of orders: 18 February 2022 Decision date: 18 February 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Duggan J Decision: See paragraphs 118 to 120 Catchwords: VALUATION OF LAND — appeal against valuations by Valuer-General — ss 6A(1) and 14G of Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW) — valuation methodology and determination of highest and best use — comparable sales and adjustments — heritage adjustment and measurement index — Applicants' claims not successful Legislation Cited: Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW) Cases Cited: Valuer-General of New South Wales v Oriental Bar Pty Ltd (2016) 217 LGERA 1 Texts Cited: Rawlinson's Australian Construction Handbook Category: Principal judgment Parties: Anastasios Prilis (First Applicant) Helen Prilis (Second Applicant) Valuer-General (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J Johnson (First and Second Applicants) A Pearman (Respondent)

Solicitors: N/A Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/313106, 2020/354858 and 2020/354865 Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Nature of proceedings 1. Anastasios Prilis and Helen Prilis (the Applicants) challenge the land values determined by the Valuer-General (the Respondent) under the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW) (the Valuation Act) for Lot 1 in DP 798784, at 325 King Street, Newtown (the Site) for base dates 1 July 2017, 1 July 2018 and 1 July 2019 (Valuing Years). 2. Pursuant to ss 6A and 14G of the Valuation Act, the Valuer-General ascertained the land value of the Site in the following amounts: * 1 July 2017 - $3,910,000; * 1 July 2018 - $3,910,000; and * 1 July 2019 - $3,160,000. 1. The Applicants objected to each of these values. The Valuer-General disallowed each of the objections and the determined values were not changed. 2. The Applicants are dissatisfied with the determination of the objections and have appealed pursuant to s 37 of the Valuation Act against those determinations on the grounds that the values determined are too high.