Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Adams v Valuer General [2014] NSWLEC 1005 Hearing dates: 6, 7, 8 August 2013 Decision date: 14 January 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Parker AC Decision: Appeal Dismissed
Catchwords: Valuation of Land Legislation Cited: Great Lakes Local Environmental Plan 1996
Valuation of Land Act 1916Cases Cited: Bingham v Cumberland County Council (1954) 20 LGR (NSW) 1
Brewarrana v Commissioner of Highways (No 2) 6 SASR
El Boustani v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 [2012] NSWLEC 266
Graham Trilby Pty Limited v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 217
Graham Trilby Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2009] NSW LEC 1087
Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2009] NSWLEC 225
Jessica Investments Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 1375
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Seatainer Terminals (1981) 48 LGRA 409
Marroun v Roads and Maritime Services [2012] NSWLEC 196
Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] HCA 8
Redeam Pty Ltd v South Australian Land Commission (1977) 40 LGRA 151
Riverbank Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1974) 48 AJLR 483
Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
Tenstat Pty Limited v Valuer General Woolworths Limited v Valuer General [2012] NSWLEC 1361
Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Limited v Valuer General [2010] NSWLEC 4
Trust Company Limited v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act 1989 [2012] NSWLEC73Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter Wesley Adams (Applicant)
Valuer General (Respondent)Representation: Counsel
Mr White (Respondent)
Solicitors
Mr Adams, Adams Raves Marsh & Co (Applicant)
Mr Rankins, Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 30085 of 2013 30086 of 2013 30087 of 2013
Judgment
This is an appeal by Peter Wesley Adams (the Applicant) under section 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (the Act) against the land values assessed by the Valuer General (the Respondent) in respect of the property known as 12 Kinka Road, Seal Rocks (the subject property).
Background
The Applicant was represented by Mr Adams, Solicitor of Adams Raves Marsh & Co.
The Respondent was represented by Mr White, Barrister, instructed by Mr Rankins, Solicitor of the Crown Solicitor.
The land value of the subject property at 1st July 2009 (the 2009 Base Date), 1st July 2010 (the 2010 Base Date) and 1st July 2011 (the 2011 Base Date) was assessed by the Respondent as follows:
2009 Base Date $1,700,000 ($3,163psm)
2010 Base Date $1,530,000 ($2,847psm)
2011 Base Date $1,450,000 ($2,698psm)
The Applicant objected to the assessed land values and appealed to the Court under section 37(1) of the Act.
The appeal was the subject of an on-site inspection on 6thAugust 2013, followed by a hearing in Court on 7thand 8thAugust 2013.
Section 40(1) of the Act states:
On an appeal, the Land and Environment Court may do any one or more of the following:
(a) confirm or revoke the decision to which the appeal relates,
(b) make a decision in place of the decision to which the appeal relates,
(c) remit the matter to the Valuer-General for determination in…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Adams v Valuer General and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] NSWLEC 1005
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Supreme Court had correctly determined that the Valuer General's assessment of Mr Adams' property value was flawed and whether the Supreme Court had been correct in ordering the Valuer General to pay damages to Mr Adams. The court was required to consider the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles to determine whether the Supreme Court's decision was legally sound.
In assessing the appeal, the court reviewed the evidence and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the Supreme Court had correctly identified that the Valuer General's assessment of Mr Adams' property value was flawed, as it had not properly considered the market value of the property. The court also found that the Supreme Court had correctly ordered the Valuer General to pay damages to Mr Adams, as he had suffered a loss as a result of the incorrect valuation. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed, as the Supreme Court's decision was legally sound and based on proper evidence and legal principles.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal Dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.