Rutile and Zircon Mines (Newcastle) Limited v Valuer-General

Case [1989] NSWLEC 217


Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Rutile & Zircon Mines (Newcastle) Limited v. Valuer-General [1989] NSWLEC 217
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Rutile & Zircon Mines (Newcastle) Limited

RESPONDENT
Valuer-General

FILE NUMBER(S): 30415/84; 30416/84; 30020/85 - 30032/85; 30043/85 - 30044/85; 30150/85; 30360/85 - 30367/85; 30358/86 - 30360/86; 30477/86 - 30484/86; 30570/86 - 30572/86 of 1986
CORAM: Hemmings J
KEY ISSUES: :-
LEGISLATION CITED: Mining Act 1973
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Local Government Act 1919
Valuation of Land Act 1916
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
07/14/1989
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
R.N. Talbot
Gaden
RESPONDENT
A.A. Hyan
H.K. Roberts, Crown Solicitor


JUDGMENT:

HIS HONOUR: Rutile & Zircon Mines (Newcastle) Limited ("the Company") appeals to this Court against the determination by the Valuer-General of the "land value" of a number of parcels of land over which the Company holds leases under the Mining Act 1973. It is common ground that, whilst the ownership, location and use of the various parcels differ, a number of questions of law arise which are relevant to each application.

At the request of both parties, an Assessor has referred those questions of law to a Judge of this Court pursuant to s.36(5) of the Land and Environment Court Act ("the L.& E. Court Act"). The referred questions are:|CF2.|PSI

held pursuant to statutory mining titles where:

a) A number of contiguous parcels of land is comprised of more than one parcel;

b) The owner in fee simple is not common to each parcel;

c) Separate statutory mining titles are held by a common Lessee;

d) The boundaries of the separate statutory mining titles are not common to the boundaries or the land held in fee simple;

e) A road separates one or more of the parcels;

f) Part of the land is Crown Land;

g) The whole of the land is used or held for a mining purpose;

h) An election is made to ascertain the value of any part of the land pursuant to s.153(1A).

Local Government Act 1919.

applied, whether the Valuer-General must have a) The boundaries of the titles in fee simple, b) The boundaries of the statutory mining 2A. Whether if the answer to 2(b) is in the benefit arising from the owner other than the the mining titles.

to land held pursuant to a statutory mining purpose of s.153 is liable for rates.

is entitled to an allowance pursuant to s.58 of profitable expenditure on a public road.

does not take into account the benefit of works entitled to an allowance for profitable "1A. In the case of every mine the land value ascertained by one or other of the following generally, or for some period or mine only, may council, as the Valuer-General may decide, that a) by valuation of the land value in 1916;

with this section; or

mine which is idle or partially idle, by mine by twenty."|CF1.|PSO

"Mine" as defined in s.4 of the Local Government Act,|CF2.|PSI

"is land either on or below the surface or partly on or partly below the surface used or held for any mining purpose, and land so used or held is a mine. A mine includes all underground workings, and all engines, machinery, workshops, tramways, and other plant, all buildings (not being dwellinghouses), works, and the surface of any land occupied exclusively in connection with and for the purposes of the mine: Provided that, in the case of a mine occupied under a lease, license, or other mineral holding, such land is situate within the boundaries of such lease, license, or holding."|CF1.|PSO

"Land value" is not defined by the Local Government Act, but by s.6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, which provides:|CF2.|PSI

the fee-simple of the land might be expected to terms and conditions as a bona-fide seller if any, thereon or appertaining thereto, other the owner or his predecessor in title had not one only of the methods referred to in s.153(1A).

2. Each mine includes all of the land held for mining Local Government Act.

3. The whole of the mine must be subject to the one Act have no relevance.

5. Valuation of land which is a mine is the boundaries fee simple.

6. Adjoining lands not used for a mine are to be separately valued pursuant to s.26 and s.27 of the land used for mining purposes to be valued for the purpose of the Local Government Act and the Government Act.

3. S.153 of the Local Government Act provides a method specifies the machinery for determining such it must take into account services, etc. on the determination in accordance with the answers to the |CF2.|PSI

Details
AGLC
Rutile and Zircon Mines (Newcastle) Limited v Valuer-General [1989] NSWLEC 217
Case
[1989] NSWLEC 217
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rutile and Zircon Mines (Newcastle) Limited ("the Company") appealed to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales against the Valuer-General's determination of the land value of several parcels of land held under mining leases under the Mining Act 1973. The parcels varied in ownership, location, and use, but several legal questions were common to each application. The Court was asked to determine these questions pursuant to s.36(5) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The referred questions primarily revolved around the definition of "mine" as per the Local Government Act 1919, the method of ascertaining land value under s.153(1A) of the same Act, and the obligations of the Valuer-General in delineating boundaries for valuation purposes.

The court was required to address several key legal issues. These included whether the Valuer-General needed to know the boundaries of fee simple titles and statutory mining titles to correctly ascertain land value. Another issue was whether the boundaries of statutory mining titles needed to align with those of the fee simple titles. The court also had to determine if the Valuer-General was required to consider the benefits accruing to the owner from the land other than its mining use. Further, the court needed to decide if the owner was liable for rates on the land held under a statutory mining purpose and whether the owner was entitled to an allowance for profitable expenditure on a public road. Finally, the court had to consider if the Valuer-General could ignore the benefits of works when determining land value.

The Court, presided over by Hemmings J, provided a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and relevant case law. It concluded that the Valuer-General did not need to know the boundaries of fee simple titles or statutory mining titles to ascertain land value, as long as the land was used for a mining purpose. The court found that the boundaries of statutory mining titles did not need to align with those of the fee simple titles. Additionally, the court ruled that the Valuer-General should not consider benefits accruing to the owner from the land other than its mining use. The court held that the owner was liable for rates on the land held under a statutory mining purpose, but was not entitled to an allowance for profitable expenditure on a public road. Finally, the court determined that the Valuer-General could not ignore the benefits of works when determining land value.

The final orders of the Court provided clarity on the legal issues raised, ensuring that the Valuer-General's role in determining land value was correctly understood in the context of mining leases under the Mining Act 1973. This decision provided significant guidance for future valuation processes involving mining land in New South Wales.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.