In Adam Pty Ltd v Valuer-General

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	In Adam Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2011] NSWLEC 55
Hearing dates:	23 March 2011
Decision date:	01 April 2011
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Biscoe J
Decision:	1. Appeals allowed; 2. Parties to bring in draft orders to reflect decision within two working days.
Catchwords:	VALUATION OF LAND:- heritage restricted land - whether there should be a deduction for a "heritage cost penalty".
Legislation Cited:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 56A Valuation of Land Amendment Act 2009 s 14G(1)(b1) Valuation of Land Act cl 18, Schedule 2, ss 6A, 14G
Cases Cited:	Commonwealth Custodial Services Ltd v Valuer-General [2007] NSWCA 365, 156 LGERA 186 Commonwealth Custodial Services Ltd v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 310 In Adam Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2010] NSWLEC 1262 Valuer-General v Commonwealth Custodial Services Ltd [2009] NSWCA 143, 74 NSWLR 700
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	In Adam Pty Ltd (Applicant) Valuer-General (Respondent)
Representation:	Mr I Hemmings (Applicant) Mr J A Ayling SC with Mr J B Maston (Respondent) Hones La Hood (Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office of New South Wales(Respondent)
File Number(s):	30850/10; 30942/10; 30943/10

Judgment

1. These are three appeals by an objector, In Adam Pty Ltd, against a joint decision of two Commissioners of the Court upholding objections to valuations by the Valuer-General under the Valuation of Land Act 1916 as at 1 July 2006, 1 July 2007 and 1 July 2008 in relation to a heritage restricted building at 223 - 225 Liverpool Street, Darlinghurst: In Adam Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2010] NSWLEC 1262. The appeals are brought under s 56A of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and, accordingly, are restricted to questions of law.

1. The Commissioners upheld the objections and amended the land values as follows:

Base Date	Valuer-General's Contention	Commissioners' decision
1 July 2006	$6.47m	$6.24m
1 July 2007	$7.5m	$6.425m
1 July 2008	$7.25m	$5.875m

Grounds of appeal and contention

1. The grounds of appeal are that:

(a) the Commissioners erred in law by not deducting what is described as "the heritage cost penalty" pursuant to s 14G(1)(b1) of the Valuation of Land Act ;

(b)   the Commissioners erred in law by finding that the "heritage cost penalty" was a case of "double dipping".

1. The "heritage cost penalty" as at 1 July 2006 was $1,666,203, which represents about 28.5 per cent of the land value determined by the Commissioners before the addition of site improvements.

1. The respondent, the Valuer-General, has filed a Notice of Contention contending that the Commissioners' decision should be upheld on a ground other than those relied on by the Commissioners, namely, without reference to the "the costs of notional renovation" at [49] of their judgment.

Statutory context

1. Sections 6A and 14G of the Valuation of Land Act relevantly provide as follows:

6A Land value

(1) The land value of land is the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms…