Falk v Valuer General - [2005] NSWLEC 141

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:
Falk v Valuer General [2005] NSWLEC 141
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
J Falk
RESPONDENT
Valuer General

FILE NUMBER(S):
31255 of 2004

CORAM:
Moore C

KEY ISSUES:
Costs - Valuation of Land :-
Respondent's application to substitute higher valuation
.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Valuation of Land Act 1916
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Rules 1996
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
.

CASES CITED:
Flack v Valuer General (1952) 18 LGR 157;
Falk v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [1999] NSWLEC 301;
Segal and Anor v Waverley Council 2004 NSWLEC 363;
Marcus Cornelius Noorbergen v Valuer General [2004] NSWLEC 243;
Brigenshaw v Brigenshaw 1938 60 CLR 336;
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534;
Funtime Investments Pty Limited v Yass Valley Council [2004] NSWLEC 300;
Brooks Maher v Cheung [2001] NSWADT 18;
.

DATES OF HEARING: 30 March 2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:
03/31/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
Applicant in person
RESPONDENT
Mr G Bartley, barrister
INSTRUCTED BY
Crown Solicitor

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Moore C

31 March 2005

31255 of 2004 J S Falk v Valuer General
This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication.

JUDGMENT

1 These proceedings arise from a series of statutorily based exchanges between the appellant, who is the proprietor of, amongst other locations, a property at 18 Sims Street, Darlinghurst (the site) and the Valuer General concerning the valuation of the site.

2 In the first instance, for the year base date 1 July 2003, the respondent made a valuation on 24 September 2003, a copy of which was served by notice of valuation on Mr Falk. The copy which was attached to the appeal papers is undated but notes that the last day for Mr Falk to lodge an objection to that valuation was 2 June 2004.

3 By letter dated 26 March 2004, Mr Falk lodged a written objection to the valuation of the site contending that the value set out in the notice, that is a land value of $170,000 as at 1 July 2003, was too high and that he proposed that the land value should be lowered to $130,000 as at that date.

4 By letter on the letterhead of the Department of Lands dated 16 July 2004, a delegate of the Valuer General wrote to Mr Falk disallowing that objection.

5 On 13 October 2004, exercising his rights pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (the Act), Mr Falk commenced class 3 proceedings in the Court challenging that disallowance of his objection and, in the course of these proceedings asserted that the value of $170,000 should be substituted with a lower one, namely $120,000.

6 The statutory process arises from a number of provisions to the Act. The first is…

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.

Continue reading Falk v Valuer General

Details

AGLC: Falk v Valuer General [2005] NSWLEC 141
Case: [2005] NSWLEC 141
Decision Date: 03/31/2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, the applicant, J. S. Falk, challenged the respondent, the Valuer General, over the valuation of a property located at 18 Sims Street, Darlinghurst. Falk objected to the valuation of $170,000 as at 1 July 2003, arguing that it was too high and proposing a lower valuation of $120,000. The court examined the statutory framework and the process leading to the objection, including the relevant sections of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. The primary legal issue was whether the court should substitute the higher valuation proposed by the Valuer General or confirm the disallowance of Falk’s objection.

The court held that Falk had not discharged the onus of proving his case under section 40(2) of the Act. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including comparable sales and statutory valuations. Falk's argument that identical valuations should not be imposed on properties of differing sizes was not substantiated. The court found that the Valuer General's evidence, particularly from expert valuer Mr. Stibbard, provided a reasonable basis for the valuation. Additionally, the court noted procedural concerns regarding the late notification to Falk about the potential for a higher valuation. The court concluded that it was not fair and reasonable to impose costs on Falk, given his genuine grievance and the lack of inappropriate procedural behavior.

The court confirmed the decision to disallow Falk's objection and did not order costs against him. The final orders were to confirm the valuation of $170,000 for the property at 18 Sims Street, Darlinghurst, return the exhibits, and make no order as to costs.

Orders