Perpetual Trustees (Australia) Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2001] NSWLEC 285

Perpetual Trustees (Australia) Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2001] NSWLEC 285

The Senior Commissioner did not create new evidence or deny procedural fairness. Read in context, the alleged notional subdivision was a schematic representation of a segmentation methodology drawn from the valuation evidence before him, particularly evidence that different parts of the sites had different values. As judicial valuer he was entitled to form his own opinion and was not required to adopt either valuer's approach. No reviewable error of law was established, so the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Section 56 a Appeal Under the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 From a Class 3 Valuation Appeal Decision / Judgment on Appeal From Senior Commissioner Jensen's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['error of Law' 'procedural Fairness' 'opportunity to Make Submissions' 'use of Illustrative Plan by Tribunal' 'judicial Valuation' 'costs']
['land Valuation' 'administrative Law' 'appellate Review' 'natural Justice'] ['error of Law' 'procedural Fairness' 'opportunity to Make Submissions' 'use of Illustrative Plan by Tribunal' 'judicial Valuation' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Section 56 a Appeal Under the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 From a Class 3 Valuation Appeal Decision / Judgment on Appeal From Senior Commissioner Jensen's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Senior Commissioner made an error of law in a s 56A appeal.' 'Whether the Senior Commissioner denied procedural fairness by including a notional subdivision plan in his reserved judgment without giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence or make submissions.' "Whether the plan was new evidence determinative of the case or merely an illustration of the Senior Commissioner's valuation methodology."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Senior Commissioner did not create new evidence or deny procedural fairness. Read in context, the alleged notional subdivision was a schematic representation of a segmentation methodology drawn from the valuation evidence before him, particularly evidence that different parts of the sites had different values. As judicial valuer he was entitled to form his own opinion and was not required to adopt either valuer's approach. No reviewable error of law was established, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The question of costs is formally reserved.' 'All exhibits may be returned.']