Site goodwill is that goodwill which cannot be transferred to another
site nearby and therefore, the proprietor is compensated for that loss.
However, site goodwill is a difficult concept to prove in practice and
has engendered a great deal of debate in the courts. The valuer should
first of all determine the total value of goodwill if any, and then try
to apportion that amount between site and personal goodwill. This can
be very difficult. Examples of site goodwill awarded by the courts are
1. Comm of Tax v Williamson 7 The Valuer 306- chemist shop at Berala,
2. Bickle v Comm of
Main Roads 17 The Valuer 209 - bakery and shop premises at Drummoyne,
3. Eastaway v The Commonwealth - engineering business
4. Min for Homes v Lazarus 2 The Valuer 209 - premises owned by a
It is submitted that there is little evidence of site goodwill in
practice except for the lease examples given above. Almost all the
court cases which have purported to assess an amount of compensation
for site goodwill have in reality, measured an advantage which the land
or site enjoys and therefore, was part of the land value. The
compensation awarded was subject to the error of "double accounting.
For example, clearly in Bickle's case the "site goodwill" was part of
the commercial land value.