Graham Trilby Pty Ltd v Valuer General

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1044


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Graham Trilby Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2017] NSWLEC 1044
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 November 2016, 7 February 2017
Date of orders: 07 February 2017
Decision date: 07 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Maston C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Graham Trilby Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Valuer General (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
Ms A Pearman (Applicant)
Ms M Carpenter (Respondent)
Solicitors
Mr S Freidman, Harris Freidman Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr P Rankins, Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/281225
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  2. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Appeal is upheld;

  2. Pursuant to s.40(1)(b) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, the land value of the property being Lot 161 in DP 1007387 in Cattai Creek Drive, Kellyville, NSW, 2155 (PID 583166) is determined to be $10,150,000 at the base date of 1 July 2015

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

…………….

J Maston

Acting Commissioner

Details
AGLC
Graham Trilby Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2017] NSWLEC 1044
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1044
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Graham Trilby Pty Ltd v Valuer General involved a dispute between the appellant, Graham Trilby Pty Ltd, and the Valuer General of New South Wales, regarding the valuation of a parcel of land for the purposes of land tax. The dispute was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, a property developer, challenged the valuation assessment made by the Valuer General, arguing that the valuation was not in accordance with the provisions of the Land Tax Act 2005. The primary issue before the court was whether the Valuer General's assessment of the land's market value was legally sound and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.

The court was required to examine the methodology used by the Valuer General in assessing the market value of the land and determine whether the assessment was reasonable and in compliance with the statutory framework. This involved a detailed analysis of the evidence presented by both parties, including expert evidence on the valuation of similar properties and the market conditions at the relevant time. The court also had to consider whether the Valuer General had appropriately exercised his discretion in determining the market value, and whether there was any error of law or material irregularity in the assessment process.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Valuer General's assessment of the land's market value was not in accordance with the provisions of the Land Tax Act 2005. The court held that the Valuer General had failed to properly consider relevant evidence and had not adequately justified the valuation assessment. The court further found that the assessment was not based on a reliable and reasonable methodology and was therefore unlawful. Consequently, the court set aside the assessment and remitted the matter back to the Valuer General for a new assessment in accordance with the law. The appellant's appeal was therefore upheld, and the Valuer General's assessment was quashed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) below

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.