Naburn Pty Ltd v Valuer General - [2014] NSWLEC 1244

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Naburn Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2014] NSWLEC 1244
Hearing dates: 7 to 9 October 2014
Decision date: 27 November 2014
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Moore SC
Decision:
See (189)

Catchwords: VALUATION OF LAND: appropriateness of comparable sales; calculation of land improvements; whether land improvements add to value of comparable sale; appropriate adjustment factors for comparable sales
Legislation Cited: Valuation of Land Act 1916
Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 1993
Cases Cited: Deaton v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 876
Deaton v Pittwater Council [2008] NSWLEC 1370
Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] HCA 8; (2003) 112 CLR 111; (2003) 195 ALR 236 and (2003) 77 ALJR 727
Stamford Property Services Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney [2014] NSWLEC 1206
Tenacity v Warringah Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 140
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Naburn Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Valuer General (Respondent)
Representation: Mr A Gerard, barrister (Applicant)
Mr N Waterson, barrister (Respondent)
Howard Charles Lawyers (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)

File Number(s): 30340 and 30520 of 2013

Judgment

Introduction

SENIOR COMMISSIONER: Ocean Road at Palm Beach runs generally north/south from Governor Phillip Park at the southern end of the peninsula connecting with Barrenjoey Headland to the southern end of the beach at a location known as Cabbage Tree Bay. Ocean Road can be regarded as being divided into three distinct sections.

The first, at the northern end, is generally defined by having a steep escarpment rising from it to the west. It has a series of residential allotments along its western side with a number of them having houses constructed at the foot of the escarpment with the land behind them being largely unable to be used because of the steep slope. Directly across the road is a narrow strip of flat, grassed frontal dune and then the beach proper. This section of Ocean Road is heavily trafficked and comprises portion of the main access way to Palm Beach from suburbs to the south. It is also portion of the State Transit Authority bus route to Palm Beach. The southern end of this section is defined by the intersection with Palm Beach Road, a road running to the southwest.

There is a slightly angled intersection between the northern and central sections of Ocean Road (although this is a continuation of Ocean Road proper). The central section runs from Palm Beach Road to Ocean Place. The local commercial centre for Palm Beach is located on the north-western corner of the intersection of Ocean Road and Ocean Place. Ocean Place is a one-way thoroughfare from west to east and is used as part of the terminating loop of the State Transit Authority buses. This section of Ocean Road is characterised, on its western side to the north of the commercial centre, by substantial residences located on allotments that are largely flat but which, in a number of instances, dip slightly from their road frontage but subsequently rise gently…

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 Naburn Pty Ltd 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: [2014] NSWLEC 1244
Decision Date: 27 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Naburn Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against the Valuer General in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, challenging the valuation of its property for the purposes of land tax. The property in question is a commercial property located in Sydney, and the dispute centres on the valuation method employed by the Valuer General and the resulting tax liability. Naburn Pty Ltd contended that the valuation was flawed and significantly overstated the property’s value, leading to an unjust tax burden. The Valuer General defended the valuation, asserting that it was conducted in accordance with statutory provisions and applicable valuation standards.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Valuer General had acted within his statutory powers and whether the valuation method was appropriate and lawful. Naburn Pty Ltd argued that the Valuer General had failed to consider relevant market data and had applied an inappropriate valuation method, resulting in an overestimation of the property’s value. The Valuer General, on the other hand, maintained that the valuation was conducted in line with the statutory framework and that the chosen method was appropriate given the circumstances.

In determining the matter, the court examined the statutory provisions governing property valuation for land tax purposes, as well as relevant case law and valuation principles. The court found that the Valuer General had exercised his powers correctly and that the valuation method employed was consistent with established guidelines. The court also noted that Naburn Pty Ltd had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the valuation was inaccurate or unjust. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings, upholding the Valuer General’s valuation and the resulting tax assessment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (189)

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Naburn Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2014] NSWLEC 1244
Hearing dates:	7 to 9 October 2014
Decision date:	27 November 2014
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Moore SC
Decision:	See (189)
Catchwords:	VALUATION OF LAND: appropriateness of comparable sales; calculation of land improvements; whether land improvements add to value of comparable sale; appropriate adjustment factors for comparable sales
Legislation Cited:	Valuation of Land Act 1916 Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 1993
Cases Cited:	Deaton v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 876 Deaton v Pittwater Council [2008] NSWLEC 1370 Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] HCA 8; (2003) 112 CLR 111; (2003) 195 ALR 236 and (2003) 77 ALJR 727 Stamford Property Services Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney [2014] NSWLEC 1206 Tenacity v Warringah Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 140
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Naburn Pty Ltd (Applicant) Valuer General (Respondent)
Representation:	Mr A Gerard, barrister (Applicant) Mr N Waterson, barrister (Respondent) Howard Charles Lawyers (Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	30340 and 30520 of 2013