Conexa Sydney Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

Conexa Sydney Holdings Pty Ltd (Conexa) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (the Commissioner). The dispute concerned whether Conexa's interest in a pipeline constituted a "land holding" for the purposes of landholder duty under the *Duties Act 1997* (NSW), or if it should be classified as "goods". The Commissioner had assessed Conexa for landholder duty on the basis that its interest in the pipeline was a land holding.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine the proper characterisation of Conexa's interest in the pipeline. Specifically, the court had to consider the meaning of "land holdings" and "goods" as defined in section 155 of the *Duties Act 1997* (NSW), and whether the nature of the interest conferred by the *Water Industry Competition Act 2006* (NSW) in relation to the pipeline fell within the definition of land holdings. A further issue was whether the interest was indeterminate and therefore non-dutiable.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the interest Conexa held in the pipeline was not merely a right to use or a licence, but rather a proprietary interest that conferred exclusive possession and control over the pipeline infrastructure. This proprietary interest was sufficiently akin to an interest in land to be considered a "land holding" for the purposes of the *Duties Act 1997* (NSW). The court found that the pipeline, by its nature and the rights conferred, was more than just "goods" and possessed characteristics that aligned it with real property. The court also determined that the interest was not indeterminate in a way that would render it non-dutiable.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Conexa was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.