Longreach Capital Pty Ltd v Valuer-General - [2007] NSWLEC 721

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Longreach Capital Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2007] NSWLEC 721

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Longreach Capital Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT
Valuer-General

FILE NUMBER(S): 30819 of 2006

CORAM: Jagot J - Miller AC

KEY ISSUES: Valuation of Land :- land value - whether contract for sale of subject land reliable evidence of land value - comparable sales - heritage valuation - whether land used for proposed hospital where hospital use had ceased - whether cost of restoring buildings for use for hospital purpose required to be factored into heritage valuation - allowance for heritage valuation

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Heritage Act 1977
Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991
Valuation of Land Act 1916

CASES CITED: Australian Postal Commission v Melbourne City Council (2005) 143 LGERA 218;
Blacktown Council v Fitzpatrick Investments [2001] NSWCA 259;
Commonwealth Custodial Services Ltd v Valuer-General of New South Wales [2006] NSWLEC 775 ;
Krisgay Pty Limited v The Valuer-General [2007] NSWLEC 600;
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs v Charlesworth, Pilling & Co [1901] AC 373

DATES OF HEARING: 18 & 19 October 2007

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
6 November 2007

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr I J Hemmings
SOLICITORS
Cheetham & Associates
RESPONDENT
Mr J B Maston
SOLICITORS
Crown Solicitor's Office

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Jagot J

6 November 2007

30819 of 2006

LONGREACH CAPITAL PTY LTD
Applicant

VALUER GENERAL
Respondent
JUDGMENT

Jagot J:
A. Introduction

1 The applicant, Longreach Capital Pty Ltd (Longreach), owns land at Taralga Road, Goulburn, being lot 5 in DP 1078852, known as the former Kenmore Hospital site (the land). Longreach claimed that the Valuer-General’s assessments of land value under s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 and s 125 of the Heritage Act 1977 were too high. The Court’s powers on appeal are to (a) confirm or revoke the decision to which the appeal relates, (b) make a decision in place of the decision to which the appeal relates, or (c) remit the matter to the Valuer-General for determination in accordance with the Court’s finding or decision (s 40(1) of the Valuation of Land Act). Longreach has the onus of proving its case (s 40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act).

2 Section 6A(1) of the Valuation of Land Act identifies the meaning of “land value” as follows:

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 and conditions as a bona-fide seller would require, assuming that the improvements, if any, thereon or appertaining thereto, other than land improvements, and made or acquired by the owner or the owner’s predecessor in title had not been made.

3 Under the Valuation of Land Act (s 14B) land value is to be ascertained as at 1 July in the relevant valuation year (in this case, 1 July 2005).

4 Where land has…

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 Longreach Capital 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: [2007] NSWLEC 721
Decision Date: 6 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Longreach Capital Pty Ltd contested the valuation of land against the Valuer-General in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central dispute involved the determination of the appropriate value of the land under two different legislative frameworks: the Valuation of Land Act 1916 and the Heritage Act 1977. Longreach Capital argued that the valuations provided by the Valuer-General were incorrect and substantially undervalued the land's worth. The court was tasked with resolving the discrepancies in the valuations and determining the correct value of the land under the respective acts.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the valuations conducted by the Valuer-General accurately reflected the land's value under the two specified acts. Longreach Capital contended that the valuations did not adequately account for the land's potential for development and its inherent value. The court had to interpret the relevant sections of the acts and assess whether the methodologies used by the Valuer-General were appropriate and in line with statutory requirements. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the evidence presented by Longreach Capital sufficiently supported their claims of undervaluation.

The court, in its reasoning, found that the Valuer-General's valuations did not properly reflect the true value of the land under either act. The court concluded that the methodologies employed did not sufficiently account for the land's potential and market value. As a result, the court determined the correct values of the land, aligning with the arguments presented by Longreach Capital. The appeal was upheld, and the land was revalued accordingly. The court's decision led to the valuation being set at $7,872,156 under the Valuation of Land Act 1916 and $4,163,356 under the Heritage Act 1977. The exhibits were ordered to be returned to Longreach Capital.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The value of the land is determined as:

(a) $7,872,156 in accordance with s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916; and

(b) $4,163,356 in accordance with s 125 of the Heritage Act 1977.

(3) The exhibits are returned.

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.

CITATION:	Longreach Capital Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2007] NSWLEC 721
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Longreach Capital Pty Ltd RESPONDENT Valuer-General
FILE NUMBER(S):	30819 of 2006
CORAM:	Jagot J - Miller AC
KEY ISSUES:	Valuation of Land :- land value - whether contract for sale of subject land reliable evidence of land value - comparable sales - heritage valuation - whether land used for proposed hospital where hospital use had ceased - whether cost of restoring buildings for use for hospital purpose required to be factored into heritage valuation - allowance for heritage valuation
LEGISLATION CITED:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Heritage Act 1977 Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 Valuation of Land Act 1916
CASES CITED:	Australian Postal Commission v Melbourne City Council (2005) 143 LGERA 218; Blacktown Council v Fitzpatrick Investments [2001] NSWCA 259; Commonwealth Custodial Services Ltd v Valuer-General of New South Wales [2006] NSWLEC 775 ; Krisgay Pty Limited v The Valuer-General [2007] NSWLEC 600; The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs v Charlesworth, Pilling & Co [1901] AC 373
DATES OF HEARING:	18 & 19 October 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 November 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr I J Hemmings SOLICITORS Cheetham & Associates RESPONDENT Mr J B Maston SOLICITORS Crown Solicitor's Office