Perilya Broken Hill Limited v Valuer-General (No 5) [2015] NSWLEC 20

Perilya Broken Hill Limited v Valuer-General (No 5) [2015] NSWLEC 20

The Valuer-General is refused leave to rely on evidence of the new owner/operator valuation methodology as the procedural principle of finality prohibits the introduction of radically new methodologies on remitter; the errors identified by the Court of Appeal do not require adoption of such methodology. Leave is granted for certain evidence by the applicant and the respondent, but only where consistent with earlier findings and responsive to identified errors. Orders are made for a separate determination of whether, for valuation purposes, minerals are to be treated as privately or publicly owned under the Mining Act 1992.

Parties
Applicant: Perilya Broken Hill Limited; Respondent: Valuer-General
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Valuation Appeal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Rulings Before Rehearing Following Court of Appeal Remitter
Outcome
Dispositive interlocutory orders; no determination of substantive land value. Valuer-General refused leave to rely on new owner/operator methodology; leave granted to applicant for certain evidence; order made for separate determination of mineral ownership assumption.
Legal Topics
Land Valuation, Valuation Methodology, Ownership of Minerals, Remitter Principles, Evidence Admissibility, Compensation for Mining, Statutory Interpretation
Property Law Mining Law Administrative Law Land Valuation Valuation Methodology Ownership of Minerals Remitter Principles Evidence Admissibility +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perilya Broken Hill Limited

Applicant

Valuer-General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Valuation Appeal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Rulings Before Rehearing Following Court of Appeal Remitter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the Valuer-General be permitted to rely on a totally new owner/operator valuation methodology?
  2. 2 Should leave be granted to reopen factual findings at the first hearing not disturbed on appeal?
  3. 3 Is the land to be valued on the assumption that minerals are publicly or privately owned under the Mining Act 1992?

Ratio Decidendi

The Valuer-General is refused leave to rely on evidence of the new owner/operator valuation methodology as the procedural principle of finality prohibits the introduction of radically new methodologies on remitter; the errors identified by the Court of Appeal do not require adoption of such methodology. Leave is granted for certain evidence by the applicant and the respondent, but only where consistent with earlier findings and responsive to identified errors. Orders are made for a separate determination of whether, for valuation purposes, minerals are to be treated as privately or publicly owned under the Mining Act 1992.

Court Disposition

Dispositive interlocutory orders; no determination of substantive land value. Valuer-General refused leave to rely on new owner/operator methodology; leave granted to applicant for certain evidence; order made for separate determination of mineral ownership assumption.

Orders

  • Valuer-General refused leave to rely on statements of Stephen Gemell and Mark Hopcraft dated February 2014.
  • Applicant granted leave to rely on evidence in the 'Perilya Broken Hill Limited Resource & Reserve Estimate 30th June 2007' regarding metal prices as at 1 July 2007.