Bisvic Pty Ltd v Valuer-General

[2015] NSWLEC 70

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Bisvic Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2015] NSWLEC 70
Hearing dates:	20 April 2015
Date of orders:	21 April 2015
Decision date:	21 April 2015
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Preston CJ
Decision:	Order that each of the appeals in proceedings nos 30001, 30002 and 30003 of 2015 is dismissed.
Catchwords:	VALUATION OF LAND – unutilised value allowance – Chief Commissioner did not refer application for unutilised value allowance to be ascertained to Valuer-General for determination – duty of Valuer-General to ascertain unutilised value allowance not enlivened –Valuer-General has not performed duty – applicant’s objections did not validly include objection to unutilised value allowance – Court can only have functions that Valuer-General had – Court does not have function of ascertaining unutilised value allowance – appeals dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Valuation of Land Act 1916 ss 29, 29(3A), 33, 34, 35(1), 35A(1), 35B, 35C, 37(1), 38, 39, 40(2), Pt 1B Divs 3, 4, 5, 5A, Pt 3 Land Tax Management Act 1956 ss 9A, 62J(1), s 62K, s 62L, 62N, Pt 7 Div 3 Local Government Act 1993 s 585
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Bisvic Pty Ltd (Applicant) Valuer-General (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms C T Ensor (Applicant) Miss M R M Carpenter (Respondent) Solicitors: Thomas & Bisley (Applicant) NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	30001-30003 of 2015
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

Nature of the appeals and outcomes

1. Bisvic Pty Ltd (‘Bisvic’) has lodged three appeals to this Court against the Valuer-General's three determinations, each dated 10 November 2014, of three objections made by Bisvic under Pt 3 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (‘the VL Act’). The basis of each objection (for the land value at base dates in 2011, 2012 and 2013) was that an unutilised value allowance under Div 3 of Pt 7 of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 (‘the LTM Act’) had not been ascertained by the Valuer-General for the land value of land at Yallah, on the western shores of Lake Illawarra. The land is Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 234771, known as 160-164 Yallah Road, Yallah (‘the land’).

2. Bisvic contended that the land is eligible to have an unutilised value allowance ascertained for its land value as the land satisfies the description in para (c) of s 62J(1) of the LTM Act.

3. The Valuer-General has applied, by a notice of motion in each appeal filed on 27 February 2015, for an order declaring that the Court has no jurisdiction over the Valuer-General in respect of the subject matter of each appeal and, as a consequence, that the appeals be struck out, or alternatively, the appeals be dismissed under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 13.4(1)(b) because no reasonable cause of action is disclosed, or for any other order the Court deems fit.

4. The basis for the Valuer-General's application was that the Valuer-General did not have power to ascertain any unutilised value allowance for the land under s 62K(2) of the LTM Act, Bisvic could not validly object under s 62N(2) of the LTM Act to the Valuer-General not ascertaining any unutilised value allowance, the Valuer-General's determination of Bisvic's objection did not include any determination regarding the ascertaining of any unutilised value allowance, and hence each appeal against the Valuer-General's determination did not give the Court jurisdiction to make any decision regarding the ascertaining of any unutilised value allowance on the appeal.

5. I have determined that the Valuer-General is correct in its submission that, in the particular circumstances of these three appeals, the Court's functions on hearing the disposing of the appeals do not include the function of ascertaining the unutilised value allowance under s 62K(2) of the LTM Act for the land. As Bisvic's case on each appeal is limited to only an objection concerning the ascertaining of an unutilised value allowance (there being no other grounds raised in Bisvic's objections or on the appeals), the appeals cannot succeed. In the circumstances, the appropriate order is not any of the particular orders sought by the Valuer-General in its notices of motion, but instead to dismiss each appeal. Both parties submitted that there should be no order made as to costs.

The relevant factors

6. The Valuer-General issued notices of valuation for the land assessing the land value at each of the base dates of 1 July 2011, 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2013 as $2,300,000. The last day to object was stated to be 28 March 2014.

7. On 19 August 2014, Bisvic signed a written objection under Pt 3 of the VL Act, which was stamped as having been received by the Valuer-General on 22 August 2014. The objection used the form approved by the Valuer-General. In section "2. Are you objecting to the land value recorded on", Bisvic ticked the box "B. Land tax assessment" rather than the box "A. Notice of valuation" and added the comment:

Non ascertainment of unutilised value allowance for 2006 land tax year and subsequent tax years up to and including 2014.

8. In section "5. Why are you objecting to your valuation?", Bisvic did not check any of the boxes with a specific ground of objection, such as that the value is too high, but only the box "Other" and then added the comment: “Unutilised value allowances not ascertained”.

9. In section "6. Your evidence to support the objection", Bisvic inserted in the space provided:

On the basis of comparable residential sales, the unutilised value allowance should be not less than $2,080,000 for each of the land tax years.

10. Bisvic changed the printed form's statement about the correct land value to read instead:

I estimate the correct land value allowance to be $2,080,000 based on the supporting information I have provided.

11. In the typed "Annexure to objection", Bisvic stated:

By letters dated 8th and 28th July 2014, the Land Owner requested the Chief Commissioner State Revenue to ascertain the unutilised value allowance for the subject property. The request was made to ascertain the allowance for the 2006 Land Tax Year up to and including the 2014 Land Tax Year.

The unutilised value allowance has not been ascertained for the subject property. This objection is made pursuant to s 62N(2) Land Tax Management Act.

The Owner contends that the unutilised value allowance should be $2,080,000.00 based on the following sales:

Lot 2806 Blair Road, Flinders      $220,000.00

Lot 2811 Dillon Road, Flinders    $225,000.00

Lot 2817 Blair Road, Flinders      $220,000.00

12. On 9 September 2014, the Valuer-General wrote to Bisvic accepting Bisvic's objections concerning the base dates of 1 July 2011, 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2013, but not accepting the objections for earlier base dates between 2006 to 2010.

13. On 10 November 2014, the Valuer-General gave written notice to Bisvic of its determinations of Bisvic's objections for the base dates of 2011, 2012 and 2013. The Valuer-General's letters each stated, in part:

I refer to your objection to the above land value.

The issues raised in your objection have been carefully considered by a professional valuer who was not involved in the original valuation. The valuation report is attached for your information.

The valuer has made the recommendation that the above land value is correct therefore your objection has been disallowed.

14. The letters advised Bisvic of its right to appeal against the Valuer-General's decision to the Land and Environment Court.

15. The valuation report that was attached to each letter assessed the objection to the land value for each valuing year. The report recommended:

The land value is supported by market evidence and falls within an acceptable market range of value therefore no alteration to the assigned value is recommended.

16. The report also noted that:

In relation to the land owner's objection, it would appear that the basis of their objection is in regard to the concession applied to the land under Section 62K of the Land Tax Management Act.

17. The report referred to the eligibility to obtain a concession of unutilised value allowance in s 62J(1) of the LTM Act, although incorrectly and incompletely paraphrased its terms. The report recommended:

However the land is not eligible for an unutilised value allowance under Section 62K of the Land Tax Management Act 1956.

18. On 11 November 2014, the Valuer-General wrote to Bisvic advising of changes made to the Register of Land Values in relation to the land. Whilst the land value for each of the valuing years of 2011, 2012 and 2013 remained at $2,300,000, an amendment was made to change the allowances under s 585 of the Local Government Act1993 from 800,000 to nil.

19. On 4 December 2014, Bisvic's solicitor wrote to the Valuer-General seeking a reconsideration of the Valuer-General's determinations dated 10 November 2014. Bisvic's solicitor noted that:

The objections lodged by our client were totally unrelated to the land value...The Valuation Report to the extent that it relates to land value is irrelevant and outside the scope of the objection. The objection was limited to the determination of the unutilised land value allowance.

20. Bisvic's solicitor also referred to the Valuer-General's letter of 11 November 2014 advising that the original land value and the amended land value were the same. Bisvic's solicitor reiterated that: "The land value was not part of the objection."

21. On 9 December 2014, Bisvic's solicitor wrote to the Commissioner, Office of State Revenue. The letter enclosed six earlier letters and one email, including a letter dated 8 July 2014 to the Crown Solicitor. At the time, the Crown Solicitor was acting for the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue in proceedings in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal brought by Bisvic. In that letter, Bisvic's solicitor said:

For the purpose of s 62K, our client requests that your client obtain the unutilised value allowance. Our client requests that the allowance be ascertained for the 2006 land tax year and each subsequent year thereafter up to and including the 2014 land tax year.

22. Returning to Bisvic's solicitor's letter dated 9 December 2014 to the Commissioner, Office of State Revenue, Bisvic's solicitor stated that, as the three elements in s 62J(1)(c) of the LTM Act were satisfied, the land was eligible to have the allowance determined by the Valuer-General.

23. There is no evidence that the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue treated either Bisvic's solicitor's letter to the Crown Solicitor dated 8 July 2014 or Bisvic's solicitor's letter to the Commissioner, Office of State Revenue dated 9 December 2014, as an application under s 62K(1) of the LTM Act for an unutilised value allowance to be ascertained for the land value of the land, or made any determination of whether the Chief Commissioner was satisfied that the land referred to in those letters satisfied the description in any of the paragraphs of s 62J(1) of the LTM Act, or referred those letters as applications to the Valuer-General under s 62K(1A) of the LTM Act for determination of an unutilised value allowance.

24. On 23 December 2014, Bisvic filed three Class 3 applications commencing the appeals against the three determinations dated 10 November 2014 of the Valuer-General.

The relevant statutory provisions

25. Under the LTM Act, for the purpose of assessing land tax, the land value of the land is to be reduced by any unutilised value allowance that is entered in the Register in respect of the land (ss 9A(1) and (2) of the LTM Act). An unutilised value allowance is ascertained under Div 3 of Pt 7 of the LTM Act. The unutilised value allowance for a land value is the amount calculated by deducting from the land value of the land the value that the land would have if it could be used as the site of a single dwelling house (s 62L(1) of the LTM Act). However, no account is to be taken of any portion of the land which is in excess of that which is reasonably necessary to be occupied or used in conjunction with the single dwelling house (s 62L(2) of the LTM Act).

26. Under Div 3 of Pt 7 of the LTM Act, land is eligible to have an unutilised value allowance ascertained for its land value as at 1 July in a year if it satisfied the description in any of paras (a) to (c) of s 62J(1) as at midnight on 30 June in that year. Bisvic contended that para (c) was relevant:

(c)   a parcel of rural land (which may comprise one or more lots or portions in a current plan within the meaning of the Conveyancing Act 1919) which is zoned or otherwise designated under an environmental planning instrument so as to permit its use otherwise than as rural land, or its subdivision into two or more lots or portions, one or more of which has an area of less than 40 hectares.

27. However, the owner of the land must apply to the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue for an unutilised value allowance to be ascertained for the land value of the land. Section 62K prescribes the procedure:

(1)   The owner of land may apply to the Chief Commissioner for an unutilised value allowance to be ascertained for the land value of the land. The application must be in the form required by the Chief Commissioner and be accompanied by such supporting information as the Chief Commissioner may request.

(1A)   If satisfied that the land to which such an application relates satisfies the description in any of the paragraphs of section 62J (1), the Chief Commissioner must refer the application to the Valuer-General for determination of an unutilised value allowance.

(2)   The Valuer-General must then ascertain the allowance if the land is eligible to have that allowance ascertained.

(3)   An allowance ascertained by the Valuer-General under this Division is to be entered by the Valuer-General in the Register in respect of the land value to which it relates and is to be shown in any assessment to which it is applicable."

28. A number of points need to be noted about this procedure for ascertaining an unutilised value allowance for the land value of land.

29. First, only the Valuer-General can "ascertain" the allowance, not the Chief Commissioner.

30. Secondly, before the Valuer-General can ascertain the allowance, three essential preliminaries must occur:

1. the owner of the land must apply to the Chief Commissioner for an unutilised value allowance to be ascertained for the land value of the land in accordance with s 62K(1) of the LTM Act;

2. the Chief Commissioner must be satisfied that the land to which such an application relates satisfies the description in any of the paragraphs of s 62J(1) of the LTM Act; and

3. the Chief Commissioner, under s 62K(1A) of the LTM Act, must refer the application to the Valuer-General for determination of an unutilised value allowance.

31. Only on the occurrence of all three of these essential preliminaries is the duty of the Valuer-General in s 62K(2) to ascertain the allowance enlivened. This is evident from the sequential structure of subss (1), (1A) and (2) of s 62K and the use of the word "then" in the phrase in subs (2) "[t]he Valuer-General must then ascertain the allowance...".

32. The word "then" fixes the time when the Valuer-General must ascertain the allowance. That time is after the Chief Commissioner has referred the application to the Valuer-General for determination of an unutilised value allowance. The Chief Commissioner, in turn, is required to refer the application to the Valuer-General for determination of an unutilised value allowance if and when the Chief Commissioner forms the satisfaction that the land to which an application for an unutilised value allowance to be ascertained for the land value for the land relates satisfies the description in any of the paragraphs of s 62J(1) of the LTM Act. The Chief Commissioner cannot form that satisfaction unless and until the owner of land makes such an application to the Chief Commissioner.

33. Thirdly, if and after the Valuer-General ascertains any unutilised value allowance, the Valuer-General is required to enter the allowance in the Register in respect of the land value to which it relates. Upon entry in the Register, the unutilised value allowance can be used to reduce the land value of the land for the purpose of assessing land tax (s 9A(1) and (2) of the LTM Act).

34. Section 62N of the LTM Act allows an owner of land to make an objection to an unutilised value allowance that has been ascertained or has not been ascertained under Div 3 of Pt 7 of the LTM Act. Section 62N provides:

(1) An objection under Part 3 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 may be made to an allowance ascertained under this Division as if it were a land value.

(2)   The right to object in respect of the land value of land includes the right to object on the ground that an allowance under this Division has not been ascertained for that land value.

35. Subsection (1) clearly applies in the circumstance where the Valuer-General has ascertained an allowance under s 62K(2) of the LTM Act. It extends the right to object under Pt 3 of the VL Act (in s 29), which only allows a person to object to a valuation of land, so as to permit a person to object to an unutilised value allowance ascertained by the Valuer-General under s 62K(2) of the LTM Act. It achieves this extension of the right to object by treating an unutilised value allowance under Div 3 of Pt 7 of the LTM Act as if it were a land value under Pt 3 of the VL Act.

36. Subsection (2) of s 62N further extends the right to object under Pt 3 of the VL Act in respect of the land value of land to include a right to object on the ground that an unutilised value allowance has not been ascertained for that land value. Such a ground is not one of the "only grounds" on which s 34 of the VL Act expressly permits an objection to be taken; hence, s 62N(2) of the LTM Act adds this ground as a ground on which objection may be taken under Pt 3 of the VL Act.

37. Subsection (2) of s 62N applies to the circumstance where an unutilised value allowance has not been ascertained. As the Valuer-General is the only person with legal authority under Div 3 of Pt 7 to ascertain an unutilised value allowance, s 62N(2) must be referring to the circumstance where the Valuer-General has not ascertained such an allowance under s 62K(2).

38. The parties disagreed as to when the circumstance in s 62N(2) will occur. The Valuer-General submitted that this circumstance can only occur if and when the Chief Commissioner has referred, under s 62K(1A) of the LTM Act, an application made by an owner of land for an unutilised value allowance to be ascertained for the land value of the land to the Valuer-General for determination of an unutilised value allowance. Unless and until the Chief Commissioner refers such an application to the Valuer-General under s 62K(1A), the duty of the Valuer-General under s 62K(2) to ascertain an allowance under Div 3 of Pt 7 is not enlivened. The Valuer-General submitted it cannot be said that "an allowance under this Division has not been ascertained" until the Valuer-General comes under the duty to ascertain the allowance. That occurs only when the Chief Commissioner refers the application to the Valuer-General under s 62K(1A). The Valuer-General submitted that s 62N(2) cannot be construed otherwise.

39. Bisvic, on the other hand, submitted that it does not matter why an allowance under Div 3 of Pt 7 of the LTM Act has not been ascertained, only the fact that it has not been ascertained. Hence, Bisvic submitted that even if the Chief Commissioner breached its duty under s 62K(1A) to refer an application to the Valuer-General for determination of an unutilised value allowance, so that the Valuer-General's duty under s 62K(2) to ascertain the allowance was not enlivened, it still could be said that “an allowance under this Division has not been ascertained”.

40. The Valuer-General responded that Bisvic's interpretation would allow an owner of land to bypass applying to the Chief Commissioner and instead proceed to lodge an objection under Pt 3 of the VL Act directly with the Valuer-General. Subsections (1) and (1A) of s 62K of the LTM Act would then have no work to do. The Valuer-General submitted that this cannot be the correct construction, when Div 3 of Pt 7 of the LTM Act is read in whole and in context.

35. In my view, the Valuer-General's construction of s 62N(2) is to be preferred. The subject matter of s 62N is the ascertaining of an unutilised value allowance under Div 3 of Pt 7 of the LTM Act: subs (1) where an allowance has been ascertained and subs (2) where an allowance has not been ascertained. The duty to ascertain the allowance is imposed by s 62K(2) on the Valuer-General. That duty is not enlivened until the three essential preliminaries in subss (1) and (1A) occur: namely, the owner of land makes an application to the Chief Commissioner for an unutilised value allowance to be ascertained for the land value (s 62K(1)); the Chief Commissioner forms the satisfaction that the land to which such an application relates satisfies the description in any of the paragraphs of s 62J(1) (s 62K(1A)); and the Chief Commissioner refers the application to the Valuer-General for determination of an unutilised value allowance (s 62K(1A)).

36. The Valuer-General cannot ascertain an unutilised value allowance for the land value of land until the Valuer-General has received, by the referral from the Chief Commissioner, the application made by the land owner that identifies the particular land in respect of which an allowance is to be ascertained. The ascertaining of an allowance is not done in the abstract; it must be done in respect of the particular land in the application that is eligible to have an allowance ascertained.

37. In this scheme, there must be a referral by the Chief Commissioner of the application made by the owner of land to the Valuer-General before the Valuer-General can perform the duty of ascertaining an unutilised value allowance. Subsection (1) of s 62N deals with the circumstance where the Valuer-General performs the duty and ascertains an allowance. Subsection (2) of s 62N deals with the circumstance where the Valuer-General does not perform the duty and has not ascertained an allowance. In either case, however, the duty of the Valuer-General to ascertain an allowance has been enlivened.

38. The consequence is that the phrase "an allowance under this Division has not been ascertained" in s 62N(2) is to be construed as referring to the circumstance where the Valuer-General's duty to ascertain an allowance has been enlivened (by the referral by the Chief Commissioner of the application to the Valuer-General), but the Valuer-General has not performed that duty so as to ascertain an allowance.

39. If an owner of land has not made an application under s 62K(1) to the Chief Commissioner, or the Chief Commissioner has not formed the satisfaction that the land to which any application made relates satisfies the description in any of the paragraphs in 62J(1), or the Chief Commissioner does not refer any application to the Valuer-General for determination of an unutilised value allowance, then the duty to ascertain an unutilised value allowance is not enlivened and hence it cannot be said that an allowance has not been ascertained.

40. As I have noted, the objection that s 62N of the LTM Act enables an owner of land to make is an objection under Pt 3 of the VL Act. Objections under Pt 3 of the VL Act are to the valuation of the land. Section 62N allows the owner of land to make an objection either to the allowance ascertained as if it were a land value (s 62N(1)) or in respect of the land value of land on the grounds that an allowance has not been ascertained for that value (s 62N(2)).

41. Section 29(3A) of the VL Act is the provision in Pt 3 that enables a person to make an objection. The objection is to be in a form approved by the Valuer-General (s 33 of the VL Act). The objection is to state the grounds of objection. For an objection to the valuation of land, the grounds upon which objection may be taken in relation to land can only be the grounds specified in s 34(1). In addition, if objection is made to the Valuer-General's refusal to determine an allowance or an apportionment factor in respect of land (under Divs 3, 4, 5 and 5A of Pt 1B of the VL Act), objection may be made on the ground that such an allowance or apportionment factor should have been determined (s 34(2A) of the VL Act). However, none of these grounds of objection in s 34(1) and (2A) are relevant to an objection made under s 62N of the LTM Act. Instead, objection may be made on the grounds in s 62N(1) and (2) of the LTM Act. The effect of s 62N is to add these grounds as grounds upon which objection to Pt 3 of the VL Act can be made to an allowance ascertained or not ascertained under Div 3 of Pt 7 of the LTM Act.

42. There are time periods prescribed for lodging an objection under Pt 3 of the VL Act (s 35(1) of the VL Act), but the Valuer-General may grant permission for a person to lodge an objection outside of the time period (s 35A(1) of the VL Act).

43. The Valuer-General must consider an objection that has been duly made and either allow or disallow the objection (s 35B(1) of the VL Act). The Valuer-General must then give notice to the objector of the determination of the objection and include reasons if the objection has been disallowed or allowed in part only (s 35C(1) and (2) of the VL Act).

44. Any person entitled under Pt 3 to object to a valuation may appeal to this Court if the person is dissatisfied with the Valuer-General's determination of any such objection to the valuation concerned (whether or not the person was the objector): s 37(1) of the VL Act. The determinations that may be appealed include a determination of the Valuer-General of an objection made (pursuant to s 62N of the LTM Act) to an allowance ascertained or not ascertained under Div 3 of Pt 7 of the LTM Act.

45. The appeal is to be made no later than 60 days after the date of issue of the notice to the Valuer-General's determination of the objection (s 38(1)), although the Court may allow a person to appeal after this period (s 38(2) of the VL Act).

46. The appellant's and respondent's cases on the appeal are not limited to the grounds of the objection (s 39 of the VL Act).

47. On the appeal, the Court may do 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 accordance with the Court's finding or decision (s 40(1)).

54. On the appeal, the appellant has the onus of proving the appellant's case (s 40(2) of the VL Act).

No valid objection to unutilised value allowance made

55. Application of the construction of the relevant statutory provisions that I have given above to the facts of Bisvic's objection and appeal means that this Court cannot make a decision concerning an unutilised value allowance for the land value of Bisvic's land.

56. Bisvic did not have a right under s 62N(2) of the LTM Act to object in respect of the land value of its land on the ground that an allowance under Div 3 of Pt 7 of the LTM Act had not been ascertained for that land value. The circumstance of an allowance not having been ascertained for that land value has not yet arisen. The reason is that the Chief Commissioner has not yet referred an application by Bisvic under s 62K(1) of the LTM Act to the Valuer-General for determination of an unutilised value allowance. The duty of the Valuer-General under s 62K(2) to ascertain an unutilised value allowance for the land value of Bisvic's land has not yet been enlivened and hence the Valuer-General cannot be said to have not performed the duty of ascertaining an allowance for that land value.

57. The objections Bisvic made under Pt 3 of the VL Act, lodged with the Valuer-General on 22 August 2014, could not validly have included an objection on the ground under s 62N(2) of the LTM Act that an unutilised value allowance has not been ascertained. The Valuer-General's determinations of Bisvic's objections did not involve a determination of that ground of objection under s 62N(2) at the LTM Act. On the face of the notices of determination dated 10 November 2014, the Valuer-General disallowed the objections because the land value in each valuing year of 2011, 2012 and 2013 was correct. The land value of the land is distinct from the unutilised value allowance for that land value. The Valuer-General's determinations of the objections did not involve an ascertaining of an unutilised value allowance for that land value.

58. Bisvic's appeals under s 37(2) of the VL Act against the Valuer-General's determinations of Bisvic's objections do not give this Court the function of ascertaining an unutilised value allowance. The Court on the appeals can only have the functions that the Valuer-General whose decision is under appeal had. The Valuer-General did not originally have the function under s 62K(2) of the LTM Act to ascertain an unutilised value allowance for the land value of Bisvic's land, and did not have that function when determining, under s 35B of the VL Act, Bisvic's objections under Pt 3 of the VL Act. Hence, this Court in determining the appeals from the Valuer-General's determinations does not have that function. Bisvic cannot therefore discharge its onus of proving its case that the Court should ascertain an unutilised value allowance for the land value of Bisvic's land.

59. The Valuer-General's determinations of Bisvic's objections did address grounds of objection beyond the ground that Bisvic had taken under s 62N(2). The Valuer-General determined that the land value of the land was correct. This means that Bisvic's appeals potentially concern more grounds than the ground under s 62N(2) of the LTM Act.

60. Furthermore, Bisvic's case on the appeals is not limited to the grounds of the objection. Hence, Bisvic could theoretically run a case on appeal on grounds other than the ground under s 62N(2). However, Bisvic has not taken objection to the Valuer-General's valuation of the land or the Valuer-General's determination of Bisvic's objections on any other ground. In its objections, Bisvic expressly stated that it took no objection to the land value of the land for the three valuing years. As a consequence, therefore, Bisvic has no other case on the appeals than the issue of ascertaining an unutilised value allowance.

61. In these circumstances, Bisvic also cannot discharge its onus of proving any case on the appeals that the Valuer-General's valuation of the land or the Valuer-General's determination of Bisvic's objections are otherwise incorrect.

62. The consequence is that the only appropriate order is that each of Bisvic's appeals should be dismissed. It is unnecessary, having regard to the determinations made by the Valuer-General that are the subject of the appeals, to confirm those determinations.

63. The parties agree that if the appeals are dismissed, it would be appropriate to make no order as to costs of the proceedings. I agree.

64. I, therefore, order that each of the appeals in proceedings nos 30001, 30002 and 30003 of 2015 is dismissed.

**********

Decision last updated: 30 April 2015