When Heritage Meets Valuation Law: The High Court Re-centres “Improvements” at the Date of Valuation
Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › Land & Environment Law › Valuer-General Victoria v WSTI Properties 490 SKR Pty Ltd [2025] HCA 23 (11 June 2025)
Published: 19 November 2025 | Reviewed: 19 November 2025
(3-minute read)
Case Summary
This case turns on a deceptively simple question under the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic):
When determining “site value”, is the question whether a structure increases the value of the land assessed at the time the structure was built, or at the time of the valuation?
The Court of Appeal had held that the effect of the work must be tested at the time the building was constructed (in this case, Landene, a heritage-listed 1897 residence). The High Court rejected this approach.
The key sentence is clear:
“The definition of ‘improvements’ requires the answer to the question whether the putative ‘improvements’ increase the value of the land to be determined at the time of the valuation.”
The Court emphasised orthodox valuation principles:
the market value hypothetical is always positioned at the valuation date;
highest and best use is assessed at that time;
improvements are tested by comparing the land’s value with and without them at that time;
heritage overlays may alter highest and best use differently in each scenario.
The appeal was allowed and remitted because the Court of Appeal’s time-of-construction test was legally incorrect and materially shaped its reasoning.
Why It Still Matters
Modern Australian property clients often face opaque valuation disputes driven by shifting assumptions. Heritage overlays, planning controls and zoning interact unpredictably with valuation legislation, leaving parties unsure whether:
a building increases value,
restrains value, or
generates different values depending on which “highest and best use” is adopted.
This case shows how quickly the analytical frame can change. One approach values the site as if redevelopment is feasible; another treats the building as essential to highest and best use; a third sees the heritage constraint differently depending on whether the building is assumed to exist.
Clients are often unaware that each of these frameworks can create parallel legal workstreams, each costly, each partially redundant, each capable of driving a dispute in different directions.
The High Court re-centred a single rule: valuation must be anchored to the valuation date. That clarity matters not just for valuers and councils, but for any client facing planning, rating or land tax disputes where experts may otherwise multiply competing pathways.
How to Avoid the Same Trap -
Cost Alignment & Two-Lawyer Structure
In disputes like this, the common client-side risk is funding two inconsistent litigation paths simultaneously.
Traditional practice often involves:
preparing both the “with improvements” valuation case and the “without improvements” case;
building competing highest-and-best-use modelling;
instructing experts for multiple alternative scenarios;
doubling preparatory work because settlement and trial require different valuation framings.
Clean Law is designed to avoid that structural risk.
1. Cost alignment means clients fund one pathway, not both.
As Clean Law explains:
“Two lawyers often cost less than one - because you fund one path, not both.”
Traditional firms bill for preparing both a settlement path and a trial path. Clean Law’s separation of early-strategy counsel and trial counsel is built to prevent duplication. If the case resolves early (as many valuation disputes do), the client has not paid for a fully constructed alternative pathway.
2. Consolidated tenders reduce the risk of multiple valuations being rebuilt unnecessarily
Before a client commits to litigation or expert evidence, Clean Law:
prepares one neutral case summary of the valuation issue,
sends that summary to several independent barristers or valuation specialists,
receives multiple views on strategy, evidentiary gaps and cost exposure,
consolidates those into one plain-language pack.
This structure helps clients understand:
which valuation assumptions genuinely matter;
which expert pathways are redundant;
whether the matter is cost-effective to pursue.
Readers who work in development, heritage or valuation disputes often want a clearer outline of how Clean Law aligns the interests between clients and their own lawyers. The safeguard explainer sets this out in detail.
Learn more → Clean Law’s Cost Alignment & Two-Lawyer Model
The High Court’s reasoning in WSTI Properties illustrates the importance of choosing the right valuation starting point, and how easily parties can end up funding unnecessary alternatives. Clean Law’s governance and cost structure are designed to keep clients anchored to a single, evidence-based pathway.
If you are facing valuation or heritage-related disputes, a confidential conversation can help map the safest, proportionate next step.
Book a confidential discussion → Secure a Private Consultation
By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.
Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.
