Moore v Local Land Services

Case [2023] NSWCATAD 140


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Moore v Local Land Services [2023] NSWCATAD 140
Hearing dates: 23 August 2022
Date of orders: 07 June 2023
Decision date: 07 June 2023
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: K Ransome, Senior Member
Decision:

(1)   The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – external appeal – assessment of notional carrying capacity of land – no jurisdiction with respect of exercise of discretion to levy rates – no evidence assessment in error

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Local Land Services Act 2013

Local Land Services Regulation 2014

Cases Cited:

Alchin V Rail Corporation NSW [2012] NSWADT 142

Braiding v Charles Sturt University [2016] NSWCATAD 90

Carr v Western Australia 920070 232 CLR

Hariz v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 6

Long v Metromix Pty Limited [2019] NSWCATAP 198

Mills v Local Land Services [2015] NSWCATAD 207

New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act (2016) 91 ALJR 177

Rodriguez v United States 480 US 222 (1987)

Ryan v Northern Tablelands Local Land Services [2021] NSWCATAD 36

Samuell v Medical Council of New South Wales [2020] NSWCATOD 149

Yammatree Pty Ltd v North West Local Land Service [2015] NSWCATAD 35

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Catherine Moore (Applicant)
Local Lands Services (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (Self Represented)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00114518
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. Catherine Moore owns a property near Braidwood. Since June 2019 about three quarters of her 123.2 hectare holding has been a Conservation Area under a Conservation Agreement with the Biodiversity Conservation Trust under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. Ms Moore does not run stock on her property and, indeed, under the terms of the Conservation Agreement is not permitted to run stock on that part of the property comprising the Conservation Agreement.

  2. The following sequence of events is taken from statements made by Ms Moore and a statement by Luke Pope dated 5 August 2022. Mr Pope is the General Manager of South East Local Land Services (LLS).

  3. On 25 January 2022 Ms Moore was issued a rates notice by LLS for the period 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022. The rates notice set out the following details:

  1. the area of land was 123.2 hectares;

  2. the notional carrying capacity of Ms Moore’s holding of land was 2.4374 stock units per hectare;

  3. the total notional carrying capacity of the land was 300.29 stock units; and

  4. the amount of rates levied was $208.33 which included a general rate and a special purpose pest management rate.

  1. Ms Moore sought a reassessment of the notional carrying capacity as applied in the rate notice. In a letter accompanying her application for a reassessment, Ms Moore referred to the fact that three quarters of the holding is a Conservation Area in which stock are not permitted, that she has never run stock on the property and the soil is of poor quality and unsuitable for…

Continue reading Moore v Local Land Services

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Moore v Local Land Services [2023] NSWCATAD 140
Case
[2023] NSWCATAD 140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Moore appealed against a decision of Local Land Services (LLS) that determined the notional carrying capacity (NCC) of his land. The Court of Appeal examined the matter to determine if LLS had the jurisdiction to assess the NCC, and if the assessment was made in error. The court also needed to ascertain whether the appeal was valid and if the assessment of NCC was correct. The court found that the NCC assessment was within LLS's jurisdiction and that there was no evidence to support a claim that the assessment was erroneous. Furthermore, the court determined that the appeal was invalid as it pertained to the exercise of discretion to levy rates, which was beyond LLS's jurisdiction. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original decision of LLS.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

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.