The Valuer General said the judge used the wrong method. The Court of Appeal said there is no wrong method.
Your client’s land tax assessment is based on a valuation they say is too high. They challenge it. The Land and Environment Court agrees. The Valuer General appeals, arguing the judge used the wrong method.
The Court of Appeal’s answer: there is no wrong method. Valuer General of NSW v Esperia Court Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 30.
The case
The Valuer General challenged land value determinations for four parcels in Strathfield across 2021 and 2022.
Robson J accepted all comparable sales selected by both parties’ valuers, adjusted each for differences with the subject land, and derived a range of rates per square metre of potential gross floor area. He calculated the median and average of those rates and selected a value informed by those figures.
The Valuer General raised three grounds: equal weight on all sales, impermissible averaging, and inadequate reasons. All three failed.
The reasoning
On weighting, the Court held there is no valuation principle requiring unequal weighting. Selecting and adjusting each sale inherently reflects relative reliability. The judge did not place equal weight on the sales; he evaluated, selected, and adjusted each differently [36]-[49].
On averaging, computing a median or average of adjusted rates is not an error in law [69]. The question is whether the valuer formed a genuine judgment rather than mechanically applying a formula. Robson J did that: his rates were neither the median nor the average [73].
On reasons, the Court found the judge gave more than adequate reasons, detailing each sale, adjustment, and resulting range.
Preston CJ: valuation principles from case law in other jurisdictions on different statutes are not an independent source of error on questions of law. The Valuation of Land Act 1916 does not prescribe any particular valuation method. The only errors of law are illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Payne JA added that the four-step comparable sales approach from Marroun is not legally required. A failure to follow those steps does not amount to a failure to perform the statutory task.
Practitioner takeaways
This confirms judicial valuers have broad methodological discretion under the Valuation of Land Act. Statistical tools like medians and averages can inform the analysis without constituting error.
For practitioners challenging land valuations for land tax, council rates, or duty, the case strengthens the position that there is no prescribed approach. Comparability and weight are questions of fact, not law.
For the Valuer General, the decision narrows available appeal grounds. Methodology disputes dressed as questions of law will not survive.
General information only. This note was accurate when written. The law may have changed since and the note is not updated. It is not legal or tax advice, does not take account of your circumstances and must not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on your own matter. If the issue is live for you or your client, email arda@nortonquaytaxlaw.com.au for advice on the current position.