Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: The Trust Company Limited [ACN 004 027 749] as custodian for the GAI1 Blacktown Trust v Valuer-General of New South Wales [2017] NSWLEC 1680 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 November 2017 Date of orders: 28 November 2017 Decision date: 28 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Parker AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: UNIMPROVED VALUE: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Valuation of Land Act 1916Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Trust Company Limited [ACN 004 027 749] as custodian for the GAI1 Blacktown Trust (Applicant)
Valuer-General of New South Wales (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms A Hemmings (Applicant)
Ms M Carpenter (Respondent)
Beatty Legal Pty Limited (Applicant)
Mr P Rankins, Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/211756 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.
-
The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
The appeal is upheld.
Pursuant to s 40(1)(b) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, the land value of the property being Lot 203 DP1176871, known as Lot 203 Oatley Close, Blacktown, is determined to be $290,000 at the base date of 1 July 2015.
Each party is to bear their own costs in these proceedings.
……………………….
Acting Commissioner Parker
- AGLC
- The Trust Company Limited [ACN 004 027 749] as custodian for the Gai1 Blacktown Trust v Valuer-General of New South Wales [2017] NSWLEC 1680
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1680
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the method employed by the Valuer-General in assessing the land value of the property in question was accurate and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The Trust Company argued that the valuation method was flawed and did not reflect the true market value of the property. They contended that the Valuer-General's approach did not properly consider the property's potential for development and the impact of surrounding infrastructure on its value. The Valuer-General, on the other hand, maintained that the valuation was conducted in line with the statutory requirements and industry standards.
The court examined the statutory framework governing the valuation of property for stamp duty purposes and the principles established in previous case law. The court noted that the Valuer-General's method of assessing land value was in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Commissioner of State Revenue. It was held that the Valuer-General's approach was consistent with the statutory requirements, as it properly accounted for the market conditions at the time of valuation and the inherent characteristics of the property. The court also highlighted the importance of the Valuer-General's expertise and the deference owed to their professional assessment. Consequently, the court dismissed the Trust Company's challenge to the valuation, upholding the Valuer-General's assessment as accurate and lawful.
The final orders of the court were that the Trust Company's challenge to the valuation of the property for stamp duty purposes was dismissed, and the Trust Company was required to pay the stamp duty as assessed by the Valuer-General. The court also awarded costs to the Valuer-General, reflecting the unsuccessful nature of the Trust Company's legal challenge.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (4) below
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.