Margie Pty Ltd (ACN 065 365 424) as trustee for the Apnp Touma Family Trust (ABN 21 376 929 553) v Valuer General of New South Wales

[2024] NSWLEC 1168

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Margie Pty Ltd (ACN 065 365 424) as trustee for the APNP Touma Family Trust (ABN 21 376 929 553) v Valuer General of New South Wales [2024] NSWLEC 1168

Hearing dates:

Conciliation conference on 15 March 2024

Date of orders:

10 April 2024

Decision date:

10 April 2024

Jurisdiction:

Class 3

Before:

Peatman AC

Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The Land Value for 71-77 Regent Street, Redfern NSW 2016 being the whole of the land in Lot 1 Deposited Plan 868963 as at the valuing year 1 July 2022 is amended to $27,000,000 pursuant to ss 6A(1) and 4(1)(d1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

(3) In accordance with s 41(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, the Valuer General must take any action that is necessary to give effect to Order (2), which may include altering the Register of Land Values in any relevant respect.

Catchwords:

VALUATION OF LAND – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 19, 34

Valuation of Land Act1916, ss 4, 6A, 29, 35, 35B, 35C, 37, 38, 40, 41

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Margie Pty Ltd (ACN 065 365 424) as trustee for the APNP Touma Family Trust (ABN 21 376 929 553) (Applicant)
Valuer General of New South Wales (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
T Poisel (Applicant)
R White (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Lionheart Lawyers (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2023/323317

Publication restriction:

No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: The Applicant appeals the Valuer General’s valuation notice which determined the 2022 year Land Value of $31,900,000 (Land Value) pursuant to s 29 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (Valuation Act) for the land known as 71-77 Regent Street, Redfern NSW 2016 being the whole of the land in Lot 1 Deposited Plan 868963 (Land).

2. On 8 February 2023, the Applicant lodged an objection to the Issued Land Value pursuant to s 29(3A) of the Valuation Act within the prescribed time for lodging an objection pursuant to s 35(1)(b) of the Valuation Act.

3. On 14 August 2023, the Valuer General disallowed the Applicant’s objection pursuant to s 35B of the Valuation Act, and issued a Notice of Determination to the Application as required by s 35C(1) and (2) of the Valuation Act.

4. On 12 October 2023, the Applicant filed an appeal pursuant to s 37(1) of the Valuation Act, within the 60 day period imposed by s 38(1) of the Valuation Act.

5. The Land Value contended by the Applicant before the Court was $23,300,000 and the Land Value contended by the Respondent in the appeal was $27,400,000. I note the parties have authorised me to disclose this information.

6. The proceedings fall within s 19(b) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).

7. The statutory power or function to be exercised in determining the proceedings is s 40 of the Valuation Act as follows:

(1) On an appeal, the Land and Environment Court may do any one or more of the following –

(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,

(c) remit the matter to the Valuer-General for determination in accordance with the Court’s finding or decision.

…

8. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the LEC Act between the parties, which was held on 15 March 2024. I presided over the conciliation conference.

9. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal, and determining the Land Value for the 2022 year to be $27,000,000 in accordance with s 40(1)(b) of the Valuation Act.

10. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings are those as set out in [1]–[7] above.

11. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

12. The Court orders:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. The Land Value for 71-77 Regent Street, Redfern NSW 2016 being the whole of the land in Lot 1 Deposited Plan 868963 as at the valuing year 1 July 2022 is amended to $27,000,000 pursuant to ss 6A(1) and 4(1)(d1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

3. In accordance with s 41(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, the Valuer General must take any action that is necessary to give effect to Order (2), which may include altering the Register of Land Values in any relevant respect.

M Peatman

Acting Commissioner of the Court

**********