Mir v Valuer General - [2009] NSWLEC 1309

NEW SOUTH WALES LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

CITATION:
Mir and ors v Valuer General [2009] NSWLEC 1309

PARTIES:
APPLICANTS
John and Marie Mir
Mir Bros (Hollywood Creations) Pty Limited
Mir Bros Trading Pty Limited
Mirco Finance Pty Limited
Mir Bros High Rise Apartments Pty Limited
Mir Bros Industries Pty Limited

RESPONDENT
Valuer General

FILE NUMBER(S):
30129 of 2007

CATCHWORDS:
VALUATION OF LAND :- appropriateness of land values

LEGISLATION CITED:
Valuation of Land Act 1916
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

CASES CITED:
Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
Kenny & Good Pty Ltd v MGICA (1992) Ltd (1999) 1999 CLR 413
Attard v Value General (2006) 146 LGERA 384,
Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Rosnet Pty Ltd (1994) 83 LGERA 440,
Myer (SA) Stores Ltd v Value General (1986) 60 LGERA 158
Morts Dock and Engineering Coy Ltd v The Valuer General (1923) 6 LGR 162
Pamalco Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 [No 3] 71 LGERA 441
Graham Trilby Pty Limited v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 217

CORAM:
Brown C

DATES OF HEARING:
29, 30 June 2009, 1, 2, 3 July 2009, written submissions 31 July 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 September 2009

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

APPLICANT
Mr P Tomasetti SC
SOLICITORS
Storey and Gough

RESPONDENT
Mr J Maston, barrister
SOLICITORS
Valuer General

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Brown C
24 September 2009
30129 of 2007
APPLICANTS
John and Marie Mir
Mir Bros (Hollywood Creations) Pty Limited
Mir Bros Trading Pty Limited
Mirco Finance Pty Limited
Mir Bros High Rise Apartments Pty Limited
Mir Bros Industries Pty Limited

RESPONDENT
Valuer General

JUDGMENT

COMMISSIONER: These are appeals under s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 against the decision of the Valuer General to determine the land value of 4 parcels of land at the Base Dates of 1 July 2000 and 1 July 2003. The 4 parcels of land comprise most of the land within Lot 2 in DP 1042471 located off Clydesdale Drive and Badgally Road, Blairmount.

Lot 2 comprises a major portion of the Blairmount residential suburb. The existing developed part of the Blairmount contains largely single detached housing. This land was developed in the early 1980s.

Five parts of Lot 2 have been separately valued because they are held in separate ownership, although only 4 parts of Lot 2 are subject to this appeal. These are:
Property 1 - (Vol 13913 Fo 32) - 2.868 ha,
Property 2 - (Vol 13913 Fo 30) - 7.372 ha,
Property 3 - (Vol 13913 Fo 29) - 7.378 ha, and
Property 4 - (Vol 13912 Fo 122) - 41.538 ha.
The valuations
The Valuer General’s land values are:
2000 Base Date
Property 1 - $300,000,
Property 2 - $330,000,
Property 3 - $390,000, and
Property 4 - $3,100,000.
2003 Base Date
Property 1 - $1,500,000,
Property 2 - $2,850,000,
Property 3 - $2,000,000, and
Property 4 - $10,500,000.
Mr Maundrell’s land values on behalf of the Valuer General…

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 Mir 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: [2009] NSWLEC 1309
Decision Date: 24 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal against the Valuer General's determination of the land value of four parcels of land at specified base dates. The applicants, various companies and individuals associated with the Mir family, contested the Valuer General's assessment of the land values for these parcels, arguing that the valuations were too low. The parcels of land in question were part of Lot 2 in DP 1042471, located off Clydesdale Drive and Badgally Road, Blairmount. The legal issues centered around the appropriate method of valuation and the factors to be considered in determining land value under the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

The court found that the method of valuation should consider the potential cooperation between different property owners in developing the land, reflecting a market where buyers and sellers act rationally and in their best economic interests. The court preferred the approach of the Valuer General's expert, who considered the potential for consolidated development, over the applicant's expert, who assumed non-cooperation among owners. The court also determined that the comparable sales method was the most reliable approach to ascertain land value, given the availability of relevant sales evidence and the need for minimal adjustment.

In its reasoning, the court addressed various factors affecting the value of the properties, including the impact of riparian setbacks, the cost of necessary engineering works such as bridges and noise barriers, and the effect of nearby public housing on land values. The court found that a reasonable adjustment could be made for some of these factors, but not for others, such as the additional noise barrier proposed by the applicant's expert.

Ultimately, the court upheld the appeal, setting the land values for the four properties at the specified base dates. The orders of the court confirmed these valuations and returned the exhibits.

Orders