Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: Valuer-General v Perilya Broken Hill Ltd Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCA 265 Hearing Date(s): 23 July 2013 Decision Date: 16 August 2013 Before: Emmett JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [12];
Preston CJ of LEC [110]Decision: (1) Appeal allowed.
(2) Set aside the orders of the Land and Environment Court of 19 October 2012.
(3) Remit the proceedings to the Land and Environment Court for determination by that Court in accordance with the decision of this Court.
(4) There be no order as to costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: APPEALS - appeal from valuation decision limited to question of law - scope of appeal - error of law in failure to bring to account cashflow - no error of law in arithmetic error
COURTS AND JUDGES - statement of reasons for decision - appeal limited to question of law - extent of duty to give reasons - no error in giving short reasons
MINES AND MINERALS - operation and history of mining legislation - nature of rights conferred by mining lease - nature of rights of owner of privately owned minerals
VALUATION - methods of valuation - hypothetical fee simple of mine - valuation by discounted cashflow of hypothetical mine - application of royalty provisions in Mining Act 1992 as generally applicable public law - parties' cashflows included royalty payments as expenses but did not include receipts of royalty for privately owned minerals - valuation set aside and proceeding remittedLegislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Land and Income Tax Assessment Act 1895
Land Tax Assessment Act 1910 (Cth)
Mining Act 1906
Mining Act 1973
Mining Act 1992
Mining on Private Lands Act 1894
Valuation of Land Act 1916Cases Cited: AMP Henderson Global Investors v Valuer General [2004] NSWCA 264; (2004) 134 LGERA 426
Archibald v Byron Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 292; (2003) 129 LGERA 311
Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 64; (1999) 74 ALJR 209
Brisbane City Council v Valuer-General for the State of Queensland (1978) 140 CLR 41
Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2010] HCA 27; (2010) 242 CLR 195
Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Platinum Investment Management Ltd [2011] NSWCA 48; (2011) 80 NSWLR 240
Colon Peaks Mining Co v Wollondilly Shire Council (1911) 13 CLR 438
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v St Helens Farm (ACT) Pty Ltd (1981) 146 CLR 336
Gollan v Randwick Municipal Council [1961] AC 82
ISPT Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2009] NSWCA 31; (2009) 165…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Valuer-General v Perilya Broken Hill Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] NSWCA 265
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Land and Environment Court had erred in law by failing to bring to account the cashflows associated with royalty payments, and whether the Land and Environment Court had erred in law by providing insufficient reasons for its decision. The Court also considered the nature of rights conferred by mining leases and the rights of owners of privately owned minerals in the context of valuation.
The Court of Appeal found that the Land and Environment Court had made an error of law by failing to properly consider the cashflows related to royalty payments in its valuation. While the parties had included royalty payments as expenses in their cashflows, they had not accounted for receipts of royalty for privately owned minerals. The Court held that this omission constituted a failure to bring to account relevant cashflows, which was an error of law. However, the Court found no error of law in the Land and Environment Court's provision of reasons, deeming them sufficient for the purposes of an appeal limited to questions of law.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the Valuer-General's appeal, set aside the orders of the Land and Environment Court, and remitted the proceedings back to that Court for redetermination in accordance with the Court of Appeal's decision. There were no orders as to the costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed.
(2) Set aside the orders of the Land and Environment Court of 19 October 2012.
(3) Remit the proceedings to the Land and Environment Court for determination by that Court in accordance with the decision of this Court.
(4) There be no order as to costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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
Established by: PRESTON CJ, PRESTON CJ
Full text does not contain this section.