Justin John Enterprises Pty Ltd v Valuer-General - [1999] NSWLEC 208

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Justin John Enterprises Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [1999] NSWLEC 208

PARTIES

APPLICANT
Justin John Enterprises Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT
Valuer-General

NUMBER:

30360 of 1998

CORAM:

Cowdroy J

KEY ISSUES:

Question of Law :- Meaning of "improvements" in s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 - whether fire damaged structures are to be regarded as "improvements" as defined - improvements as defined in the said Act includes anything erected on the land other than improvements as defined in s 4 - whether applicant entitled to separate valuations held in the same ownership where buildings are erected on one parcel of land - no buildings erected on the remaining parcel

LEGISLATION CITED:

Valuation of Land Act 1916 s 6A(1), s 26

DATES OF HEARING:

09/01/1999

DATE OF JUDGMENT DELIVERY:

09/10/1999

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr N Hemmings QC (Solicitor)
SOLICITORS
Allen Allen & Hemsley
RESPONDENT
Ms J Blackman (Barrister)
SOLICITORS
Crown Solicitor

JUDGMENT:

Background

1. By application class three Justin John Enterprises Pty Ltd (“the applicant”) appealed against the respondent’s valuation made pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act 1916 No 2 (“the Act”) in respect of two parcels of land known as lot 1 in DP 100529 being premises 248 - 250 George Street (“the vacant lot”) and lot 1 in DP 81420 known as 252 George Street Sydney (“252 George Street”). Collectively the said lots are referred to as “the subject lands”. Two preliminary points of law have been raised as follows:-

1. Whether structures erected on land which reduce rather than enhance the value of the land are comprehended by and included in the word “ improvements ” in section 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

2. Whether the two lots the subject of the valuation in dispute should have been separately valued under section 26 of the Act as at the relevant Base Date of 1 July 1997.

2. The subject lands are included in the Central Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1996 and in the Development Control Plan 1996 (Amendment No 2) (“DCP 1996”) which imposes planning controls specifically relating to certain fire damaged buildings (“the fire damaged structures”) at 252 George Street Sydney. In addition, the Central Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1992 - Conservation of Heritage Items imposes planning controls applicable to the subject lands. In accordance with the principles established in Royal Sydney Golf Club v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1955) 91 CLR 610, the respondent has taken into consideration the effect of DCP 1996 in relation to the subject lands and other restrictions.

3. The parties have agreed upon the salient facts. Pursuant to s 14A of the Act the date at which the valuation is to be determined (“the base date”) of the subject lands was the 1 July 1997 and at that date such lands were held in common ownership. The vacant lot previously had a shop building erected upon it which had been demolished at the base date. It is…

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 Justin John Enterprises 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: [1999] NSWLEC 208
Decision Date: 09/10/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Justin John Enterprises Pty Ltd appealed against the Valuer-General's valuation of two parcels of land in Sydney, which included a vacant lot and a lot with fire-damaged structures. The key issues were whether the fire-damaged structures should be considered "improvements" under section 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, and whether the two lots should have been separately valued under section 26 of the Act. The applicant argued that the fire-damaged structures should not be considered improvements because they did not enhance the value of the land, and that the two lots should be separately valued as they were historically treated as separate lots.

The court held that the fire-damaged structures were "improvements" for the purposes of section 6A, as the definition of "improvements" included man-made works other than those defined as "land improvements" in section 4. The court found that it did not matter if the improvements added or detracted from the value of the land; their existence was to be ignored for the purposes of the valuation. The court also held that the two lots should not be separately valued, as section 26 required buildings to be erected on each parcel of land and adapted to separate occupation. Since there were no buildings on the vacant lot at the base date, the applicant's entitlement to rely on the proviso in section 26 was disqualified.

The court answered the questions as follows: (1) structures erected on land which reduce rather than enhance the value of land are "improvements" for the purpose of the definition contained in section 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, and (2) the two lots the subject of the valuation in dispute should not have been separately valued as at the relevant base date of 1 July 1997.

Orders