Bisvic Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2015] NSWLEC 70

Bisvic Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2015] NSWLEC 70

Because the Chief Commissioner had not referred any application by Bisvic to the Valuer-General for determination of an unutilised value allowance, the Valuer-General's duty under s 62K(2) of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 was not enlivened. Bisvic therefore had no valid objection under s 62N(2) that an allowance had not been ascertained. The Valuer-General did not have the function of ascertaining the allowance when determining the objections, and the Court on appeal could not exercise a function the Valuer-General did not have. As Bisvic advanced no other ground affecting the land values, each appeal had to be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Appeals Against Determinations of Objections Under Pt 3 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Notice of Motion by the Valuer General Seeking Dismissal or Strike Out; Final Dismissal of Appeals
Outcome
Each appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['unutilised Value Allowance' 'objections to Land Value' 'jurisdiction and Functions on Appeal' "valuer General's Powers" 'chief Commissioner Referral Procedure']
['valuation of Land' 'land Tax' 'administrative Law'] ['unutilised Value Allowance' 'objections to Land Value' 'jurisdiction and Functions on Appeal' "valuer General's Powers" 'chief Commissioner Referral Procedure']

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

Class 3 Appeals Against Determinations of Objections Under Pt 3 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Notice of Motion by the Valuer General Seeking Dismissal or Strike Out; Final Dismissal of Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Bisvic had a valid objection under s 62N(2) of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 on the ground that an unutilised value allowance had not been ascertained for the land value.' "Whether the Valuer-General's duty under s 62K(2) of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 to ascertain an unutilised value allowance had been enlivened." "Whether the Court, on appeal from the Valuer-General's objection determinations, had the function of ascertaining an unutilised value allowance for the land."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Chief Commissioner had not referred any application by Bisvic to the Valuer-General for determination of an unutilised value allowance, the Valuer-General's duty under s 62K(2) of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 was not enlivened. Bisvic therefore had no valid objection under s 62N(2) that an allowance had not been ascertained. The Valuer-General did not have the function of ascertaining the allowance when determining the objections, and the Court on appeal could not exercise a function the Valuer-General did not have. As Bisvic advanced no other ground affecting the land values, each appeal had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Each appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Each of the appeals in proceedings nos 30001, 30002 and 30003 of 2015 is dismissed.']