Joseph v Valuer General - [2010] NSWLEC 96

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Joseph v Valuer General [2010] NSWLEC 96

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Daniel Joseph
RESPONDENT
Valuer General

FILE NUMBER(S): 30174 of 2010

CORAM: Craig J

KEY ISSUES: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE :- extension of time to commence appeal under s 37 of Valuation of Land Act 1916 No 2 – principles to be considered in extending time under s 38(2) of Valuation of Land Act 1916 No 2 – extension of time granted

LEGISLATION CITED: Valuation of Land Act 1916 No 2

CASES CITED: Jassls Pty Limited v Valuer General [2006] NSWLEC 59

DATES OF HEARING: 1 June 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 1 June 2010

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT
Self represented
RESPONDENT
Mr J Mitchell, barrister
SOLICITOR
Crown Solicitor's Office

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

CRAIG J

1 June 2010

10/30174 DANIEL JOSEPH v VALUER GENERAL

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Daniel Joseph appeals to this Court pursuant to s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 No 2 from the determination by the Valuer General of the land value of land known as 137 Green Point Road, Oyster Bay, as at 1 July 2005. It was a determination made by the Valuer General on 10 July 2006. That determination was one which followed an objection lodged with the Valuer General by Mr Joseph against the assessment of land value for the subject land at the relevant date as being $454,000. The Valuer General allowed the objection and determined that the land value should be reduced to $425,000.

2 The letter dated 10 July 2006 from the Land and Property Management Authority (the Authority) on behalf of the Valuer General determining the objection, included advice to Mr Joseph as to the availability of appeal to this Court. The letter says:

“If you are not satisfied with this decision, you are entitled to appeal against the determination to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales for decision.”

3 The letter then proceeds to provide details of the Court’s location, address and telephone number. Notwithstanding that information, Mr Joseph apparently contacted an officer of the Authority and sought to understand whether there was a further avenue for objection, he being dissatisfied with the reduced figure which the Valuer General had determined. He asserts that on several occasions he spoke to officers of the Authority and was encouraged, as he understood the advice given to him, to lodge a further objection.

4 It is clear that he did so. There are letters from the Authority in both 2008 and 2010 which, in turn, refer to letters of objection received from Mr Joseph but in respect of which no further determination is made. The Valuer General indicated in letters to Mr Joseph that such further objections were out of time and that he was not prepared to entertain such objection, as was his discretionary right under s 35B of the Valuation of Land Act.

5 The fact…

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 Joseph 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: [2010] NSWLEC 96
Decision Date: 1 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Daniel Joseph v Valuer General, the applicant, Daniel Joseph, appealed a decision made by the Valuer General regarding the valuation of land located at 137 Green Point Road, Oyster Bay, as of 1 July 2005. The Valuer General had determined the land value to be $425,000 following an objection from Mr Joseph, who had initially been assessed at $454,000. Despite being informed of his right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court, Mr Joseph did not proceed with an appeal within the statutory 60-day period and instead continued to pursue further objections. When the Valuer General refused to entertain these further objections, Mr Joseph eventually sought to appeal to the Court, well outside the prescribed timeframe.

The court was required to determine whether it should exercise its discretion under s 38(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 to permit the late appeal. This involved assessing the delay in lodging the appeal, the reasons for the delay, the extent of any prejudice caused by the delay, and whether there was an arguable case for the appeal. The court found that while the delay was significant, Mr Joseph had acted in good faith and without legal advice, attempting to negotiate with the Valuer General and relying on information provided by the Authority. The court also found that the Valuer General had not suffered any prejudice due to the delay and that there was at least an arguable case based on a valuation report that suggested the land value could be lower than determined. The court concluded that the appeal should be permitted, despite the late filing.

The court granted Mr Joseph's application to appeal beyond the statutory 60-day period, extending the time for filing the appeal to 12 March 2010. The court also ordered that each party bear their own costs and scheduled a directions hearing for 11 June 2010. The exhibits were to be returned to the parties.

Orders