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

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).
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.

The Applicants objected to each of these values. The Valuer-General disallowed each of the objections and the determined values were not changed.
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.

Background facts

The Site is located on the north-western corner of King Street and Eliza Street, within the suburb of Newtown and the Local Government Area of Inner West Council (formerly Marrickville Council).
The Site has two street frontages: a southern frontage of 15.68m to King Street and an eastern frontage of 20.18m to Eliza Street. The ground floor is comprised of three retail shops. The first floor contains a commercial office. The site area is 321.2 m².
For each of the relevant valuation years, development of the Site was controlled under the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Marrickville LEP) and the Development Control Plan, and the Site was zoned B2 – Local Centre.
The Site is shown on the Marrickville LEP Heritage Map and is individually listed as “Former CBC Bank including interiors” within Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage of the Marrickville LEP, item no. I153. The Site is not listed as an item on the State Heritage Register.
Whilst there are three different proceedings,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anastasios Prilis 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWLEC 11
Decision Date: 18 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anastasios Prilis brought an application against the Valuer-General, seeking judicial review of the Valuer-General's decisions regarding the valuation of his property. The property in question, located at 30-32 High Street, Footscray, was subject to valuation under the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic). The dispute arose from the Valuer-General's assessment of the property's market value and the subsequent calculation of land tax. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Valuer-General's valuation of the property and the resulting land tax assessment were lawful and supported by the evidence. The court had to determine if the Valuer-General had acted within their statutory powers, correctly applied relevant legislation and valuation principles, and whether the decision was subject to judicial review on the grounds of unreasonableness, error of law, or procedural unfairness. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether there was any bias or conflict of interest that might have affected the Valuer-General's impartiality.

In resolving these issues, the court examined the statutory framework governing property valuation and land tax assessment, the evidence presented, and the process followed by the Valuer-General. The court found that the Valuer-General had not adequately considered the relevant market conditions and comparable sales data, leading to an overvaluation of the property. This overvaluation resulted in an increased land tax liability for the applicant. The court held that the Valuer-General's decision was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, thereby warranting judicial review. Consequently, the court quashed the Valuer-General's valuation and land tax assessment, and remitted the matter back for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs 118 to 120

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.

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