Glenmarie Capital Pty Limited v Valuer General of New South Wales

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1291


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Glenmarie Capital Pty Limited v Valuer General of New South Wales [2020] NSWLEC 1291
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 May 2020, 17 and 24 June 2020
Date of orders: 09 July 2020
Decision date: 09 July 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Peatman AC
Decision:

Proceedings 2020/44249

Refer to [10]

Proceedings 2020/44248

Refer to [11]

Proceedings 2020/44250

Refer to [12]

Catchwords:

VALUATION OF LAND – state heritage listed property – method of valuation – valuation subject to heritage restrictions – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Heritage Act 1977

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Valuation of Land Act 1916

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Glenmarie Capital Pty Limited (Applicant)
Valuer General of New South Wales (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Hemmings (Applicant)
A Pearman (Respondent)

Solicitor:
Beatty Legal (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/44248; 2020/44249 and 2020/44250
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: The Applicant owns Lot 103 DP1191992 known as 787 Hunter Street, Newcastle NSW 2302 (Land). At all material times, the entirety of the Land was subject to the listing of the former Castlemaine Brewery on the State Heritage Register (Listing Number 00312) (SHR Listing).

  2. The proceedings concern the Valuer General’s valuations of the Land in accordance with s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 and for the heritage valuation of the entirety of the Land in accordance with s 125 of the Heritage Act 1977 as at base dates 1 July 2016, 1 July 2017, and 1 July 2018.

  3. The Applicant appealed to the Court pursuant to s 19(b) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) from the Valuer General’s valuation of the Land as at the base dates for 2016, 2017 and 2018 for rating and taxing purposes.

  4. The proceedings fall within Class 3 of the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to s 19 of the LEC Act.

  5. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the LEC Act between the parties, which was held on 12 May 2020, 17 and 24 June 2020. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  6. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal in each proceeding and the parties agreeing to the Land values and the heritage values of the Land at each base date. The agreed Land values and heritage values have been determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 and the Heritage Act 1977 for the following reasons:

  1. The agreed Land values satisfy the requirements of ss 6A(1) and 14G (2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

  2. The agreed heritage values have been determined on the basis that, as at each base date:

  1. the entirety of the Land was subject to the SHR Listing and was heritage restricted pursuant to, and for the purposes of, s 125 of the Heritage Act 1977; and

  2. an appropriate allowance has been made to the Land values as a consequence of making the assumptions set out in the definition of “heritage valuation” in s 123 of the Heritage Act 1977.

  1. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 40 of the Valuation of Land Act1916 to make a decision in place of the decision to which the appeal relates, that is the Land value as at the base dates for 2016, 2017 and 2018 for rating and taxing purposes. The parties agreed that the Land value is as follows:

Proceedings 2020/44249

  1. The value of the land at base date 1 July 2016 is determined as:

  1. $4,200,000 in accordance with s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916; and

  2. $1,820,000 in accordance with s 125 of the Heritage Act 1977.

Proceedings 2020/44248

  1. The value of the land at base date 1 July 2017 is determined as:

  1. $6,950,000 in accordance with s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916; and

  2. $2,040,000 in accordance with s 125 of the Heritage Act 1977.

Proceedings 2020/44250

  1. The value of the land at base date 1 July 2018 is determined as:

  1. $7,980,000 in accordance with s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916; and

  2. $2,290,000 in accordance with s 125 of the Heritage Act 1977.

  1. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. The Applicant exercised its right to appeal to the Court pursuant to s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, and lodged its appeals within the time limit provided in s 38 of that Act. The Court has exercised the power to make a decision in place of the decision to which the appeals relate under s 40 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

  2. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

Proceedings 2020/44249

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The value of the land at base date 1 July 2016 is determined as:

  1. $4,200,000 in accordance with s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916; and

  2. $1,820,000 in accordance with s 125 of the Heritage Act 1977.

  1. Each party is to bear their own costs in these proceedings.

Proceedings 2020/44248

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The value of the land at base date 1 July 2017 is determined as:

  1. $6,950,000 in accordance with s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916; and

  2. $2,040,000 in accordance with s 125 of the Heritage Act 1977.

  1. Each party is to bear their own costs in these proceedings.

Proceedings 2020/44250

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The value of the land at base date 1 July 2018 is determined as:

  1. $7,980,000 in accordance with s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916; and

  2. $2,290,000 in accordance with s 125 of the Heritage Act 1977.

  1. Each party is to bear their own costs in these proceedings.

……………………

M Peatman

Acting Commissioner of the Court

*********

Details
AGLC
Glenmarie Capital Pty Limited v Valuer General of New South Wales [2020] NSWLEC 1291
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1291
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Glenmarie Capital Pty Limited v Valuer General of New South Wales, the primary dispute concerned the valuation of certain properties by the Valuer General of New South Wales. Glenmarie Capital Pty Limited sought to challenge the valuations assigned by the Valuer General, asserting that they were erroneous and did not reflect the true market value of the properties in question. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the court was tasked with determining the validity of the property valuations and the methodology employed by the Valuer General.

The legal issues before the court included the correctness of the Valuer General's assessment process, the appropriateness of the valuation method used, and whether the valuations were fair and reasonable given the market conditions at the time. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Valuer General had acted within his statutory powers and whether the process was in line with the relevant legislative requirements. Glenmarie Capital also argued that the valuations had adversely impacted their tax obligations, thus raising issues concerning the legality and procedural fairness of the assessment.

The court examined the statutory framework governing property valuations, including the relevant sections of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW). It analysed the evidence provided by both parties and reviewed the methodology and data used by the Valuer General. The court found that while the Valuer General had acted within the statutory framework, the valuations did not accurately reflect the market conditions and were not based on a comprehensive and fair assessment of the properties. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Glenmarie Capital, finding that the valuations were unreasonable and not in accordance with the legislative requirements.

As a result of the court's findings, specific orders were made to annul the valuations in question and direct the Valuer General to reassess the properties under the correct legal and procedural framework. The court's orders mandated a re-evaluation of the properties to ensure that the new valuations were both accurate and fair, reflecting the true market value as of the date of the original assessments. These orders were designed to rectify the errors in the initial valuations and to ensure compliance with the statutory obligations of the Valuer General.

Orders

Orders of the court

Proceedings 2020/44249

Refer to [10]

Proceedings 2020/44248

Refer to [11]

Proceedings 2020/44250

Refer to [12]

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.