GPT Re Limited v Valuer-General

[2010] NSWLEC 220

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

GPT RE Limited v Valuer-General [2010] NSWLEC 220

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
GPT RE Limited

RESPONDENT
Valuer-General

FILE NUMBER(S):

30636 of 2010; 30637 of 2010; 30638 of 2010

CORAM:

Pepper J

KEY ISSUES:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE :- application for vacation of s 34 conciliation conference - several parcels of the subject land in a valuation dispute to be sold - sale price relevant to any determination of their value - vacation granted

LEGISLATION CITED:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 ss 56, 57 and 58

CASES CITED:

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

DATES OF HEARING:

25 October 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

25 October 2010

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr D Miller
SOLICITORS
Gadens Lawyers

RESPONDENT
Mr B Row (solicitor)
SOLICITORS
Crown Solicitor's Office

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

PEPPER J

25 October 2010

30636 of 2010 GPT RE Limited v Valuer General
30637 of 2010
30638 of 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Introduction

1 HER HONOUR: Before the Court is an application filed by the applicant, GPT RE Limited (“GPT”), for the vacation of a s 34 conciliation conference to be held on 27 October 2010. The order setting down the s 34 conference was made by the Court on 16 September 2010.

2 The three proceedings the subject of the forthcoming s 34 conference concern the valuation, for land tax purposes, of three adjacent lots.

Evidence of GPT

3 In support of the application for the vacation, GPT relied on an affidavit of Ms Jodie Wauchope, GPT’s legal representative, affirmed 21 October 2010.

4 In her affidavit, Ms Wauchope deposed to the fact that on 14 October 2010, Mr Sam Vincent, the development manager for GPT, informed her that GPT had placed advertisements seeking expressions of interest for the sale of two of the three lots the subject of the proceedings. The expression of interest period closes on 18 November 2010.

5 Ms Wauchope stated that upon receiving these instructions she formed the view that any resulting sale was likely to be relevant to the proceedings insofar as the determination of the land value of the subject land. She conveyed this information to the respondent, who promptly consented to the vacation of the s 34 conference.

Consideration

6 The principles applicable to an application to vacate a s 34 conference are for present purposes no different to that applicable to the vacation of a final hearing.

7 Accordingly, regard must be had to the reasons given for seeking the vacation, whether the vacation is due to any fault on behalf of the party seeking it, or due to the fault of some other party, whether or not the party seeking the vacation has delayed in making the application and, of course, the impact the vacation will have on the efficient conduct of the Court’s business (Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175). In determining whether or not to grant the vacation regard must also be had to the overriding purpose of facilitating the “just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings” (s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005). More specifically, the Court must follow the dictates of justice and have regard to the objects of case management (ss 57 and 58 of the Civil Procedure Act).

8 Although the application for vacation has been made perilously close to the date set for the s 34 conference, and therefore, the Court has been inconvenienced and the orderly conduct of its business impeded, I am nevertheless satisfied that, having regard to the material contained in Ms Wauchope’s affidavit, the lateness of the vacation application was unavoidable. Furthermore, as the affidavit discloses, the vacation has been sought through no fault of either party.

9 More importantly, I entirely accept the submission of GPT that any sale resulting from the expression of interest process will be highly relevant in determining the land value of the subject land in the three proceedings.

10 In all the circumstances, it is therefore appropriate that I grant the vacation sought.

11 However, in order to progress the finalisation of the three proceedings it is also appropriate that I grant leave to the parties to approach the Registrar forthwith to obtain a new s 34 conciliation conference date to be held at a suitable time after the period for any expressions of interest has closed.

Orders

12 The orders of the Court are therefore as follows:

(1) the order made by the Court on 16 September 2010 that the three proceedings be set down for a s 34 conciliation conference on 27 October 2010 be vacated;

(2) the parties are granted leave to approach the Registrar forthwith to set the three proceedings down for a s 34 conciliation conference on a date at least 14 days after 18 November 2010; and

(3) the three proceedings are to be set down for a further directions hearing two days following the s 34 conciliation conference.

**********