ISPT Pty Limited v Valuer General (No 2) [2006] NSWLEC 660

ISPT Pty Limited v Valuer General (No 2) [2006] NSWLEC 660

It was fair and reasonable to award the Applicant the costs thrown away by the Valuer-General's unreasonable preparation of the case concerning highest and best use, because the Valuer-General's valuer continued until shortly before the hearing to rely on a mixed commercial/retail/residential use and comparable sales beyond retail-only sales, causing unnecessary planning, quantity surveying and valuation costs. However, the Applicant was not entitled to all costs merely because it succeeded, the proceedings did not cease to be an administrative appeal, and the failure to concede the appealed base date figures or accept the offers of compromise did not justify a broader costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Valuation Appeal Costs Application / Notice of Motion for Costs After Judgment in Valuation Appeals
Outcome
Applicant partly successful on the costs motion; costs thrown away to be awarded, and Applicant to receive costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['costs in Class 3 Valuation Proceedings' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Orders' 'unreasonable Conduct in Preparation for Hearing' 'highest and Best Use Valuation Evidence' 'offers of Compromise']
['costs' 'valuation of Land' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['costs in Class 3 Valuation Proceedings' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Orders' 'unreasonable Conduct in Preparation for Hearing' 'highest and Best Use Valuation Evidence' 'offers of Compromise']

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 Valuation Appeal Costs Application / Notice of Motion for Costs After Judgment in Valuation Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair and reasonable to order the Valuer-General to pay the Applicant's costs of the valuation appeals." "Whether the Valuer-General's conduct in the proceedings was unreasonable and caused costs to be thrown away." 'Whether the proceedings ceased to have the character of an administrative appeal because they involved mixed questions of fact and law.' "Whether the Valuer-General's failure to make concessions or accept offers of compromise justified a costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair and reasonable to award the Applicant the costs thrown away by the Valuer-General's unreasonable preparation of the case concerning highest and best use, because the Valuer-General's valuer continued until shortly before the hearing to rely on a mixed commercial/retail/residential use and comparable sales beyond retail-only sales, causing unnecessary planning, quantity surveying and valuation costs. However, the Applicant was not entitled to all costs merely because it succeeded, the proceedings did not cease to be an administrative appeal, and the failure to concede the appealed base date figures or accept the offers of compromise did not justify a broader costs order.

Court Disposition

Applicant partly successful on the costs motion; costs thrown away to be awarded, and Applicant to receive costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The parties are to agree on the costs thrown away or specify the planning, quantity surveyor and valuation evidence the costs of which were thrown away so the Court can make specific orders.' 'The Applicant is awarded its costs of the motion.']