Sydney Fish Market Pty Ltd v Valuer General of New South Wales

Case [2024] NSWLEC 1030


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sydney Fish Market Pty Ltd v Valuer General of New South Wales [2024] NSWLEC 1030
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 1 August 2023, 13 and 20 December 2023
Date of orders: 01 February 2024
Decision date: 01 February 2024
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Kempthorne AC
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The valuation of 56-60 Pyrmont Bridge Road, Pyrmont (identified as PID 3380476 in the 2021 Land Tax Assessment Notice) as at 1 July 2020, is $26,000,000.

(3) No further order as to costs.

Catchwords:

VALUATION OF LAND – objection to issued Land Value – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

Valuation of Land Act 1916, ss 14A,14I, 34, 37

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Sydney Fish Market Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Valuer General of New South Wales (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
R Lancaster SC (Applicant)
R White (Respondent)

Solicitors:
HWL Ebsworth (Applicant)
Crown Solicitors Office NSW (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/259536
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. COMMISSIONER: This Class 3 application arises from the disallowed objection and subsequent appeal by the Applicant pursuant to s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (Valuation Act) in respect of the Land Value for the Valuing Year, 1 July 2020, of Lot 1 Deposited Plan (DP) 74155, Lots 1 and 2 DP 125720, Lot 1 DP 734622, Lot 1 DP 836351 and Lot 2 DP 827434, known as 56-60 Pyrmont Bridge Road, Pyrmont (the Land).

Jurisdiction Pre-requisites

  1. The Applicant is the occupier of part of the Land pursuant to a 50-year lease which was executed on 31 October 1994 and commenced on 29 October 1994 between the Crown and the Applicant.

  2. The Land is subject to s 14I of the Valuation Act.

  3. The Valuer General of New South Wales (VG) issued a Notice of Valuation in accordance with s 14A of the Valuation Act to the Applicant for the Property in respect of the Valuing Year, 2020, with a Land Value of $52,200,000.

  4. The Applicant lodged an objection with the VG's office to the issued Land Value pursuant to s 34 of the Valuation Act.

  5. The Land Value contended by the Applicant in the Appeal was $0.

  6. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties on 1 August 2023, 13 and 20 December 2023.

  7. I presided over the conciliation conference.

Section 34 Agreement

  1. During the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties (being a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions).

  2. The terms of decision agreed to by the parties were:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The valuation of 56-60 Pyrmont Bridge Road, Pyrmont (identified as PID 3380476 in the 2021 Land Tax Assessment Notice) as at 1 July 2020, is $26,000,000.

  3. No further order as to costs.

  1. I am satisfied that the parties' decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  2. As the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

Orders

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The valuation of 56-60 Pyrmont Bridge Road, Pyrmont (identified as PID 3380476 in the 2020 Land Tax Assessment Notice) as at 1 July 2020, is $26,000,000.

  3. No further order as to costs.

P Kempthorne

Acting Commissioner of the Court

**********

Details
AGLC
Sydney Fish Market Pty Ltd v Valuer General of New South Wales [2024] NSWLEC 1030
Case
[2024] NSWLEC 1030
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sydney Fish Market Pty Ltd brought an appeal against the Valuer General of New South Wales concerning the valuation of a property situated at 56-60 Pyrmont Bridge Road, Pyrmont. The dispute centred around the correct valuation of the property for the purposes of the Land Tax Assessment Notice issued for 2021. The appeal was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which was tasked with determining the appropriate valuation for the property as of 1 July 2020.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the valuation of the property, as determined by the Valuer General, was accurate and in accordance with the applicable legislative framework. The Court needed to assess the methodology employed by the Valuer General in arriving at the valuation and compare it against the statutory requirements and relevant case law. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the valuation was supported by the evidence presented and whether it reflected the true market value of the property as at the relevant date.

In delivering its decision, the Court found that the methodology used by the Valuer General was flawed and did not accurately reflect the market value of the property. The Court determined that the valuation provided by the Valuer General was significantly lower than the market value, and as such, the appeal was upheld. The Court set the correct valuation of the property at $26,000,000, which it found to be consistent with the market value as at 1 July 2020. The Court did not make any further orders regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The valuation of 56-60 Pyrmont Bridge Road, Pyrmont (identified as PID 3380476 in the 2021 Land Tax Assessment Notice) as at 1 July 2020, is $26,000,000.

(3) No further 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.