Signel Pty Ltd v Valuer General - [2008] NSWLEC 1232

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Signel Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 1232

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Signel Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT
Valuer General

FILE NUMBER(S): 30708 of 2007

CORAM: Parker AC

KEY ISSUES: Valuation of Land :- Land Value

LEGISLATION CITED: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Valuation of Land Act 1916

CASES CITED: Commonwealth Custodial Services as Trustee for the Burwood Trust Fund; Trust Company of Australia Limited v Valuer-General [2006] NSWLEC 400
Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2001) 51 NSWLR 673 (CA)

DATES OF HEARING: 06/05/2008

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
17 June 2008

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr S Hoddinott, litigant in person
on behalf of Signel Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT
Mr G Newport, Barrister
Instructed by Mr P Rankins, Solicitor
of Valuer General

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Parker AC

17 June 2008

30708 of 2007 Signel Pty Ltd v Valuer General
JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal by Signel Pty Ltd (the Applicant), under Section 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (the Act), against the land value assessed by the Valuer General (the Respondent) in respect of the property known as 50 Pacific Parade, Dee Why (the subject property).

Background

2 The land value of the subject property at 1 July 2006 (the base date), was assessed by the Valuer General at $1,620,000 and by Signel Pty Ltd at $1,050,000.

3 The matter was the subject of mediation under Section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 but the parties were unable to reach agreement. The parties consented to my disposing of the proceedings with a further hearing under Section 34(3)(b)(ii) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The parties consented to my having regard to all matters considered in the mediation conference.

4 The matter was the subject of an on site inspection on 6th May 2008, followed by a hearing in the Land and Environment Court.

5 Mr Hoddinott, a Registered Valuer, appeared as the representative for Signel Pty Ltd and not as an expert valuer.

6 Mr Newport, Barrister, represented the Valuer General, instructed by Mr Rankins, Solicitor of the Valuer General.

7 Section 40(2) of the Act states:

“On an appeal, the appellant has the onus of proving the appellant’s case.”

The subject property

8 The subject property is located on the northern side of Pacific Parade, situated between the intersections with Sturdee Road and The Crescent. It is a regularly shaped block, having an area of 765.1sqm, with a frontage to Pacific Parade and comprising Lot 23 in Deposited Plan 6643. Improvements consist of 15 units comprising 6x1 bedroom and 9x2 bedroom units over three storeys with lower ground floor parking and garages.

Highest and best use

9 The existing development of 15 units appears likely to exceed the density of development currently permitted under the LEP, which may be in the order of 9 units.

10 Mr Hoddinott contended that the existing development should be disregarded and that…

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 Signel 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: [2008] NSWLEC 1232
Decision Date: 17 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Signel Pty Ltd (the Applicant) appealed against the land value assessed by the Valuer General (the Respondent) for the property at 50 Pacific Parade, Dee Why. The Applicant valued the property at $1,050,000 while the Valuer General valued it at $1,620,000. The matter was unable to be resolved through mediation and was referred to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales for a hearing. The court had to determine the highest and best use of the subject property and the appropriate valuation method. The Applicant argued that the highest and best use of the site was the lower density of development permitted under the Local Environment Plan, while the Valuer General contended that the highest and best use of the site was the existing use of the site. The court found that the existing use of the site was the highest and best use consistent with Section 6A(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. The court also considered the evidence presented by both parties and found that the valuation presented by the Valuer General was supportable. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the land value of $1,545,000 as at the base date of 1 July 2006 for the property at 50 Pacific Parade, Dee Why.

The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales dismissed the appeal by Signel Pty Ltd against the land value assessed by the Valuer General for the property at 50 Pacific Parade, Dee Why. The court found that the highest and best use of the site was the existing use of the site, which was consistent with Section 6A(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and found that the valuation presented by the Valuer General was supportable. The court confirmed the land value of $1,545,000 as at the base date of 1 July 2006 for the property at 50 Pacific Parade, Dee Why. The court did not make any order as to costs and returned the exhibits.

Orders