Roggiero v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 170

Roggiero v Valuer General [2008] NSWLEC 170

The Acting Commissioner's written order did not give reasons, or alternatively gave inadequate reasons, because it stated a conclusion and referred only generally to comparable evidence and issues without exposing the reasoning process, findings or treatment of the parties' arguments. Section 34(5) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required reasons, and the common law duty to give adequate reasons was not satisfied. The Court also rejected the submission that s.40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 shifted the onus to the Valuer General; the onus remained on the challenger to lead probative evidence of error or a better view.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2008
Procedural Posture
S.56 a Appeal in a Valuation Objection Appeal / Appeal From an Acting Commissioner's S.34 Determination
Outcome
The Valuer General's appeal was upheld, the Acting Commissioner's order was set aside, the matter was remitted to a different Commissioner, and each party was ordered to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['adequacy of Reasons' 'onus of Proof in Valuation Objection Appeals' 'comparable Sales Valuation Evidence' 'remittal' 'costs']
['land Valuation' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['adequacy of Reasons' 'onus of Proof in Valuation Objection Appeals' 'comparable Sales Valuation Evidence' 'remittal' '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

S.56 a Appeal in a Valuation Objection Appeal / Appeal From an Acting Commissioner's S.34 Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Acting Commissioner failed to give reasons, or gave inadequate reasons, for determining the valuation at $750,000.' 'Whether the Acting Commissioner failed to apply s.40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, which places the onus of proof on the appellant in a valuation appeal.' 'Whether the matter should be remitted for determination by a different Commissioner and what costs order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Acting Commissioner's written order did not give reasons, or alternatively gave inadequate reasons, because it stated a conclusion and referred only generally to comparable evidence and issues without exposing the reasoning process, findings or treatment of the parties' arguments. Section 34(5) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required reasons, and the common law duty to give adequate reasons was not satisfied. The Court also rejected the submission that s.40(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 shifted the onus to the Valuer General; the onus remained on the challenger to lead probative evidence of error or a better view.

Court Disposition

The Valuer General's appeal was upheld, the Acting Commissioner's order was set aside, the matter was remitted to a different Commissioner, and each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ["The VG's appeal under s.56A of the Court Act is upheld." 'The order of the Acting Commissioner dated 13 February 2008 is set aside.' 'The matter is remitted for determination by a different Commissioner of the Court, according to law and with regard to these reasons.' 'Each party is to pay its own costs.']