Martinovic v Valuer General

[2008] NSWLEC 144

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Martinovic v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 144

PARTIES:

APPLICANT:
Radoje Martinovic

RESPONDENT:
Valuer General

FILE NUMBER(S):

30736 of 2007

CORAM:

Biscoe J

KEY ISSUES:

Practice and Procedure :- application for order that hearing not continue before a Commissioner - alleged apparent bias.

CASES CITED:

Martinovic v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 119

DATES OF HEARING:

01/04/2008

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

1 April 2008

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:
Mr R Martinovic (in person)
SOLICITORS
N/A

RESPONDENT:
Mr P Rankins, solicitor
SOLICITORS
I V Knight
Crown Solicitor

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

HIS HONOUR

1 April 2008

30736 of 2007

RADOJE MARTINOVIC v VALUER GENERAL

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an oral motion by the applicant, Mr Martinovic, for an order that the hearing of his objection to a valuation assessment by the respondent, the Valuer General, not continue before Acting Commissioner Parker.

2 On 7 February 2008, the proceedings were listed for hearing on 18 March 2008. On that date the hearing commenced before Acting Commissioner Parker with a site inspection and continued at the Local Court at Penrith. During the hearing Mr Martinovic told the Acting Commissioner that he wished the hearing to cease in order to make an application for the hearing to be by a judge and jury. The Acting Commissioner adjourned the hearing in order to give Mr Martinovic the opportunity to make that application to the duty judge. On 25 March 2008, the duty judge, Lloyd J, dismissed that application: Martinovic v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 119.

3 The proceedings were listed before the Registrar today to obtain a date when the hearing would resume before the Acting Commissioner. Mr Martinovic, however, indicated before the Registrar that he now wished to move for the hearing of the matter not to continue before the Acting Commissioner. The motion has come before me as the duty judge. Mr Martinovic has asserted from the bar table that (a) he does not want the Acting Commissioner to decide his case; (b) the Acting Commissioner did not take anything he said into account at the hearing in March and that it was like “talking to empty air”; (c) in contrast, the Acting Commissioner listened to what was put to him on behalf of the respondent; (d) he feels that he would not have a fair hearing and would prefer his case to be heard by a judge or two commissioners; (e) he did not know that the Acting Commissioner was hearing his appeal; and (f) he disagreed with his property being valued by reference to other sales.

4 As best I can understand it, the ground of the motion is, essentially, alleged apparent bias by the Acting Commissioner during the hearing. Such a ground cannot be established by assertions from the bar table to a judge who is not hearing the case. Mr Martinovic’s disagreement with his property being valued by reference to other sales is in a different category but is not capable of grounding the motion. Accordingly, the motion is dismissed.