Martinovic v Valuer General

[2008] NSWLEC 119

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Martinovic v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 119
PARTIES:	APPLICANT: Radoje Martinovic RESPONDENT: Valuer General
FILE NUMBER(S):	30736 of 2007
CORAM:	Lloyd J
KEY ISSUES:	Practice and Procedure :- application for trial by a judge and jury - statutory appeal depends on the terms of the statute - governing principles
LEGISLATION CITED:	Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 13(3), s 19, s 30(1), s 33(1), s 36 and s 56A
DATES OF HEARING:	25 March 2008
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	25 March 2008
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT: In Person SOLICITORS: N/A RESPONDENT: P Rankins (solicitor) SOLICITORS: I V Knight Crown Solicitor

JUDGMENT:

- 2 -

IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Lloyd J

Tuesday, 25 March 2008

LEC No. 30736 of 2007

MARTINOVIC v VALUER GENERAL [2008] NSWLEC 119

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The applicant, Mr Radoje Martinovic, has appealed under s 37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 against the valuation made by the Valuer General of his property, No. 66 Torkington Road, Londonderry.

2 Acting Commissioner, Dr David Parker, was appointed to hear the appeal. The appeal is at present part-heard.

3 Mr Martinovic now applies to have his appeal heard by a judge and jury. The application is refused for the following reasons.

4 An acting commissioner has and may exercise the function of a commissioner and shall be deemed to be a commissioner: s 13(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The proceedings are within Class 3 of the Court’s jurisdiction: s 19 of the Act. Classes 1, 2 and 3 of the Court’s jurisdiction shall be exercised by a judge, or one or more commissioners: s 33(1) of the Act.

5 The Chief Judge may make arrangement as to the judge or commissioner who is to exercise the Court’s jurisdiction: s 30(1) of the Act.

6 Where proceedings are pending in Class 1, 2 or 3 of the Court’s jurisdiction, the Chief Judge may direct that the proceedings be heard and disposed of by one or more commissioners: s 36(1)(a) of the Act. Moreover, the commissioner or commissioners hearing and disposing of the proceedings shall have and may exercise the function of the Court and the decision of the commissioner or commissioners shall be deemed to be the decision of the Court: s 36(2)(3) of the Act.

7 This is a statutory appeal against an administrative decision which entirely depends on the terms of the statute. There are no imperative circumstances which call for a right to jury trial and hence there are no provisions in the Act for the empanelling of a jury.

8 There is no reason why this appeal must be heard by a judge. No legal issues are to be determined. The appeal is solely one involving the application of settled valuation principles to the facts. The acting commissioner in the present case has been duly appointed and specifically chosen because of his expertise. He is an experienced valuer. There is nothing to suggest that it is not appropriate that Acting Commissioner Dr Parker determine the matter.

9 Moreover, there is a further right to appeal against decisions of commissioners under s 56A of the Act in the event that a question of law arises and which may be said to have been wrongly decided.

10 The application for a hearing by a judge and jury is dismissed.

I hereby certify that the preceding 10 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr Justice D H Lloyd.

Associate
**********