Robert Croft Holdings Pty Ltd v Valuer General - [2018] NSWLEC 190

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Robert Croft Holdings Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2018] NSWLEC 190
Hearing dates: 28 and 29 June 2018
Date of orders: 29 June 2018
Decision date: 23 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Class 3
Before: Molesworth AJ
Decision:
(1) The Applicant’s appeal be dismissed.

(2) In accordance with s 40(1)(a), the Valuer General’s issued land value as at the July 2015 base date of $1,680,000 not be disturbed, therefore it is confirmed.
(3) There will be no order as to costs.
Catchwords:
VALUATION – appeals – valuation of highly constrained waterfront site – whether highest and best use is new development or existing use – new development unlikely to be approved – highest and best use is existing residential flats – s 6A(2) of Valuation of Land Act 1916
VALUATION – appeals – direct valuation method – comparable sales largely unhelpful – uplift factors include capacity for improvements to continue existing use – s 6A(2)(b) of Valuation of Land Act 1916 – costs of development application not relevant to hypothetical exercise per s 6A(2) of that Act
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 s 88K
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 4.15
North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 cll 6.9, 6.12
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005
Valuation of Land Act 1916 ss 4, 6A, 29, 35B, 40
Cases Cited: Olefines Pty Ltd v Valuer-General of New South Wales (2018) 228 LGERA 407; [2018] NSWLEC 18
Olefines Pty Ltd v Valuer-General of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 265
Valuer-General of New South Wales v Oriental Bar Pty Limited (2016) 217 LGERA 1; [2016] NSWCA 48
Valuer-General v Fivex Pty Ltd (2015) 206 LGERA 450 [2015] NSWCA 53
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Robert Croft Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Valuer General (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Robert Croft (Litigant in person)
Mr Scott Nash (Respondent)
Solicitors:
N/A
Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)

File Number(s): 17/236350

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE LAND
LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
THE EVIDENCE
THE SITE VIEW
MAIN ISSUES
SUBMISSIONS ON PLANNING
Applicant’s submissions on planning
Respondent’s submissions on planning

SUBMISSIONS ON VALUATION
Applicant’s submissions on valuation
Sale 1 – Lower Spofforth Walk
Sale 2 – Glenferrie Avenue
Sale 3 – Churchill Crescent
Sale 4 – Alan Street

Respondent’s valuation evidence
Respondent’s submissions on valuation

CONSIDERATION AND DECISION
Outcome
The application of s 6A(2) valuation pathway
The rationale for applying s 6A(2) to the circumstances in this case
Valuation determination
Comparable Sales
Sale 1 – Lower Spofforth Walk
Sale 2 – 17 Glenferrie Ave, Cremorne
Sale 3 – 41 Churchill Cres, Cammeray
Sale 4 – 1 Alan Street, Cammeray

Valuation uplift factor

COURT’S CALCULATION OF VALUE
Difference between Respondent’s unimproved land value and the issued land value

ORDERS

Judgment

This is an appeal under s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, by Mr Robert Croft (Applicant) in relation to the Valuer General’s assessment of land value of the Applicant's property being Lot 4 DP 333590, known as 2 Ben…

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 Robert Croft Holdings 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: [2018] NSWLEC 190
Decision Date: 23 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Croft Holdings Pty Ltd sought to appeal against the Valuer General’s assessment of the land value of certain property, which was set at $1,680,000 as of July 2015. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with reviewing the assessment, with the central issue being whether the Valuer General had acted outside the bounds of his statutory powers in determining the land value. The court was required to consider whether the assessment process was flawed and whether the resulting valuation was unreasonable.

The court examined the process by which the Valuer General arrived at the valuation and considered the criteria set out in the relevant legislation. It was held that the Valuer General had followed the correct statutory process and that the assessment was not unreasonable. The court found that the Valuer General’s decision was based on a proper consideration of the factors relevant to the valuation of the property, and the court was not persuaded that there were any errors in the assessment process that warranted a different outcome.

As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Valuer General’s issued land value of $1,680,000 as at July 2015. The court held that there was no basis for disturbing the valuation and that the appeal was without merit. No order was made as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Applicant’s appeal be dismissed.

(2) In accordance with s 40(1)(a), the Valuer General’s issued land value as at the July 2015 base date of $1,680,000 not be disturbed, therefore it is confirmed.

(3) There will be no order as to costs.

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:	Robert Croft Holdings Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2018] NSWLEC 190
Hearing dates:	28 and 29 June 2018
Date of orders:	29 June 2018
Decision date:	23 November 2018
Jurisdiction:	Class 3
Before:	Molesworth AJ
Decision:	(1) The Applicant’s appeal be dismissed. (2) In accordance with s 40(1)(a), the Valuer General’s issued land value as at the July 2015 base date of $1,680,000 not be disturbed, therefore it is confirmed. (3) There will be no order as to costs.
Catchwords:	VALUATION – appeals – valuation of highly constrained waterfront site – whether highest and best use is new development or existing use – new development unlikely to be approved – highest and best use is existing residential flats – s 6A(2) of Valuation of Land Act 1916 VALUATION – appeals – direct valuation method – comparable sales largely unhelpful – uplift factors include capacity for improvements to continue existing use – s 6A(2)(b) of Valuation of Land Act 1916 – costs of development application not relevant to hypothetical exercise per s 6A(2) of that Act
Legislation Cited:	Conveyancing Act 1919 s 88K Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 4.15 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 cll 6.9, 6.12 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 Valuation of Land Act 1916 ss 4, 6A, 29, 35B, 40
Cases Cited:	Olefines Pty Ltd v Valuer-General of New South Wales (2018) 228 LGERA 407; [2018] NSWLEC 18 Olefines Pty Ltd v Valuer-General of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 265 Valuer-General of New South Wales v Oriental Bar Pty Limited (2016) 217 LGERA 1; [2016] NSWCA 48 Valuer-General v Fivex Pty Ltd (2015) 206 LGERA 450 [2015] NSWCA 53
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Robert Croft Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant) Valuer General (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Robert Croft (Litigant in person) Mr Scott Nash (Respondent) Solicitors: N/A Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	17/236350