Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Valuer-General - [2009] NSWLEC 225

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2009] NSWLEC 225

PARTIES:
APPLICANT:
Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:
Valuer-General

FILE NUMBER(S): 31205 of 2008; 31206 of 2008

CORAM: Biscoe J

KEY ISSUES: VALUATION OF LAND :- appeal from Valuer General's land value assessments - industrial land

LEGISLATION CITED: Blacktown Local Environment Plan 1988
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 75J, Part 3A
Valuation of Land Act 1916, ss 6A(1), 37(1), 40

CASES CITED: McKee v Valuer-General [1971] NZLR 436

DATES OF HEARING: 2 - 4 November 2009

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
24 December 2009

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT:
Mr G. Colman
SOLICITORS:
DibbsBarker

RESPONDENT:
Mr J. Maston
SOLICITORS:
Crown Solicitor's Office (NSW)

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

BISCOE J

24 December 2009

31205 and 31206 of 2008

HOLCIM (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD v VALUER-GENERAL

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These are two appeals by Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd against the Valuer-General’s assessments of the land value of its vacant industrial land at 21 Kellogg Road, Rooty Hill, being Lot 5 in DP 255515 (Land). The statutory assessments were $17,500,000 (representing $190/m² x 91,944 m² of developable land) and $18,800,000 ($204/m²x 91,944 m²) at the respective base dates of 1 July 2006 and 1 July 2007.

2 The applicant submits, based on its valuation evidence, that:

3 The Valuer-General submits, based on valuation evidence, that the land values were, respectively, $20,225,000 ($220/m² x 91,944m²) and $21,235,000 ($231/m² x 91,944m²). Although they are higher than the statutory assessments, the Valuer-General does not submit that the statutory assessments should be increased.

4 The appeals are brought under s 37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, which provides that:

“Any person entitled under Part 3 to object to a valuation may appeal to the Land and Environment Court if the person is dissatisfied with the Valuer-General’s determination of any such objection to the valuation concerned (whether or not the person was the objector).”

5 Section 40 states the power of the Court on appeal and places the onus of proof on the appellant:

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Valuer-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] NSWLEC 225
Decision Date: 24 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd initiated appeals against the Valuer-General's assessments of the land value of its vacant industrial land at Rooty Hill, New South Wales. The statutory assessments were $17,500,000 for 1 July 2006 and $18,800,000 for 1 July 2007. The applicant argued that the values should be $12,840,900 and $14,679,600 respectively. The Valuer-General maintained that the values should be $20,225,000 and $21,235,000 but did not argue for an increase in the statutory assessments. The key issues were the valuation of the land, particularly considering the potential for direct mainline rail access and the appropriate adjustments for differences between the subject property and comparable sales. The Land and Environment Court considered the evidence and arguments from both parties, focusing on the comparability of the sales and the adjustments made by the valuers. The Court found that the statutory assessments were within the supportable range and that the applicant had not discharged its onus of proof. The appeals were dismissed, and the statutory valuations were upheld. The Court ordered that the exhibits be returned and that the application be dismissed in both matters.

Orders