Perilya Broken Hill Ltd v Valuer-General (No 8) [2015] NSWLEC 72

Perilya Broken Hill Ltd v Valuer-General (No 8) [2015] NSWLEC 72

Leave was refused because Perilya sought at the last moment, after remitter and after previously presenting the mining information evidence as only responsive to the Valuer-General's excluded new methodology, to introduce a large and contentious new issue and evidence that could have been raised at the original hearing, was not required by the Court of Appeal's decision, would disrupt imminent hearing dates, would be unfair without reopening the Valuer-General's excluded methodology, and was not mandated by s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. Given Perilya's concession that the final hearing had no utility if the motion failed and its lack of objection to dismissal, the proceedings...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Valuation Appeal Concerning Mining Land / Applicant's Notice of Motion for Leave to Contend for Variation of Valuation Methodology and Rely on Further Expert Evidence After Remitter From the Court of Appeal
Outcome
The applicant's notice of motion filed on 5 May 2015 was dismissed and the proceedings were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['valuation Objection' 'remitter From Court of Appeal' 'finality of Litigation' 'leave to Adduce Additional Evidence' 'mining Information Evidence' 'case Management and Expedition']
['valuation of Land' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'mining Land'] ['valuation Objection' 'remitter From Court of Appeal' 'finality of Litigation' 'leave to Adduce Additional Evidence' 'mining Information Evidence' 'case Management and Expedition']

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 Concerning Mining Land / Applicant's Notice of Motion for Leave to Contend for Variation of Valuation Methodology and Rely on Further Expert Evidence After Remitter From the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be granted leave after remitter to contend for a variation of Lloyd AJ's valuation methodology to account for the value of mining information." 'Whether the applicant should be permitted to rely on expert statements of Mr Edward Gleeson dated 19 May and 27 June 2014 and Mr Ken Pendergast dated 4 May 2015.' 'Whether s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 required the Court to take account of the proposed mining information evidence as a matter of law.' 'Whether, if the motion were refused, the proceedings should be dismissed because the applicant accepted the final hearing would have no utility.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because Perilya sought at the last moment, after remitter and after previously presenting the mining information evidence as only responsive to the Valuer-General's excluded new methodology, to introduce a large and contentious new issue and evidence that could have been raised at the original hearing, was not required by the Court of Appeal's decision, would disrupt imminent hearing dates, would be unfair without reopening the Valuer-General's excluded methodology, and was not mandated by s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. Given Perilya's concession that the final hearing had no utility if the motion failed and its lack of objection to dismissal, the proceedings...

Court Disposition

The applicant's notice of motion filed on 5 May 2015 was dismissed and the proceedings were dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's notice of motion filed on 5 May 2015 is dismissed." 'The proceedings are dismissed.' 'The exhibit may be returned.']