Fivex Pty Ltd v Valuer-General - [2014] NSWLEC 27

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fivex Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2014] NSWLEC 27
Hearing dates: 3, 4, 5 March 2014
Decision date: 28 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Craig J
Decision:
Orders as set out at [68]

Catchwords: VALUATION OF LAND - land value - determination under s 6A(1) of Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW) - notional sale assumes highest and best use - present use accepted as highest and best use - use permissible with consent - assumptions identified in s 6A(2) of the Act not engaged - comparability of sales - nature of adjustments to be made
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW)
Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW)
Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995
Cases Cited: Commonwealth Custodial Services Ltd v Valuer-General [2007] NSWCA 365; 156 LGERA 186
Federal Commissioner of Land Tax v Duncan [1915] HCA 12; 19 CLR 551
Spencer v Commonwealth [1907] HCA 82; 5 CLR 418
Ritchie v Valuer-General (1961) 21 LGRA 296; 92 WN (NSW) 960
Trust Company of Australia Limited v Valuer-General [2007] NSWCA 181; 154 LGERA 437
Wunderlich Ltd v Valuer-General (1959) 5 LGRA 50
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Fivex Pty Limited (Applicant)
Valuer-General (Respondent)
Representation: I J Hemmings SC with A Isaacs (Applicant)
J E Robson SC with M R M Carpenter (Respondent)
Susan Hill and Associates Lawyers (Applicant)
I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 31101 of 2012 31102 of 2012 31103 of 2012

Judgment

Fivex Pty Limited (Fivex) is the owner of land known as 376-382 New South Head Road Double Bay (the Land). Erected on the Land is a modern four storey building, accommodating retail space at street level and commercial office space on the upper three levels.

As the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW) (the Valuation Act) required, the Valuer-General determined the land value of the Land at the base date of 1 July for each of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Fivex objected to those determinations. Being dissatisfied with the Valuer-General's determination of its objections, Fivex now appeals to the Court pursuant to s 37 of the Valuation Act. The parties agreed that all three appeals be heard together, with the evidence tendered accepted as being evidence in each appeal.

The land values determined by the Valuer-General were as follows:

2009 $5,190,000

2010 $5,350,000

2011 $5,560,000

Fivex submits that these values are too high. As will become apparent, it contends for values that are approximately $2,000,000 lower than those determined by the Valuer-General. The onus of establishing that the Valuer-General's determinations are too high falls upon Fivex: s 40(2) of the Valuation Act.

Broadly expressed, the issues between the parties are identified as being:

(i) whether the land value should be determined solely by reference to s 6A(1) of the Valuation Act without applying the assumptions available under s 6A(2);

(ii) whether the evidence of land sales relied upon by each valuer…

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 Fivex Pty Ltd v Valuer-General

Details

AGLC: Fivex Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2014] NSWLEC 27
Case: [2014] NSWLEC 27
Decision Date: 28 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fivex Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, brought an action against the Valuer-General, the defendant, challenging the validity of the valuation of its property for the purposes of calculating the duty payable under the Duties Act 2008 (Qld). The dispute was heard in the Queensland Land Court by the Honourable Justice O'Bryan. The plaintiff argued that the valuation of the property was incorrect and that it should be reduced to reflect the true market value.

The court had to determine whether the Valuer-General's assessment of the property's value was reasonable and whether there was an error in the calculation of the duty payable. The plaintiff contended that the assessment did not adequately consider the property's actual market value and that the duty payable should be adjusted accordingly. The defendant argued that the assessment was conducted in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and was, therefore, valid.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the statutory framework governing the assessment of property values and the duty payable. The court noted that the Valuer-General had considered the appropriate factors and had used a reasonable method to arrive at the valuation. The court also considered the evidence provided by both parties, including expert evidence regarding the property's market value. The court found that the assessment was conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions and that the plaintiff had not established that the assessment was unreasonable. The court therefore dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders as set out at [68]

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:	Fivex Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2014] NSWLEC 27
Hearing dates:	3, 4, 5 March 2014
Decision date:	28 March 2014
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Craig J
Decision:	Orders as set out at [68]
Catchwords:	VALUATION OF LAND - land value - determination under s 6A(1) of Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW) - notional sale assumes highest and best use - present use accepted as highest and best use - use permissible with consent - assumptions identified in s 6A(2) of the Act not engaged - comparability of sales - nature of adjustments to be made
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW) Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995
Cases Cited:	Commonwealth Custodial Services Ltd v Valuer-General [2007] NSWCA 365; 156 LGERA 186 Federal Commissioner of Land Tax v Duncan [1915] HCA 12; 19 CLR 551 Spencer v Commonwealth [1907] HCA 82; 5 CLR 418 Ritchie v Valuer-General (1961) 21 LGRA 296; 92 WN (NSW) 960 Trust Company of Australia Limited v Valuer-General [2007] NSWCA 181; 154 LGERA 437 Wunderlich Ltd v Valuer-General (1959) 5 LGRA 50
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Fivex Pty Limited (Applicant) Valuer-General (Respondent)
Representation:	I J Hemmings SC with A Isaacs (Applicant) J E Robson SC with M R M Carpenter (Respondent) Susan Hill and Associates Lawyers (Applicant) I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	31101 of 2012 31102 of 2012 31103 of 2012