Statewide Property Ventures Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2008] NSWLEC 140

Statewide Property Ventures Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2008] NSWLEC 140

The applicant had in substance accepted by 1 March 2007 that the correct land value was $2.95 million, subject only to issues concerning other years, yet maintained the appeal for nearly a further year until its valuer confirmed that value. Because no merit issue remained as to the valuation at the relevant base date and the respondent was put to expense defending the proceedings, the proceedings were unreasonably maintained from 1 March 2007, making it fair and reasonable to order costs from that date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Application by the Respondent for Costs in an Appeal Under S 37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Ex Tempore Judgment After the Substantive Valuation Proceedings Were Resolved by Consent Orders
Outcome
Respondent's costs application granted in part.
Legal Topics
['costs in Land and Environment Court Valuation Appeals' 'presumption of No Order as to Costs' 'whether Proceedings Were Unreasonably Maintained After Agreement on Land Value']
['costs' 'land Valuation'] ['costs in Land and Environment Court Valuation Appeals' 'presumption of No Order as to Costs' 'whether Proceedings Were Unreasonably Maintained After Agreement on Land Value']

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

Application by the Respondent for Costs in an Appeal Under S 37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Ex Tempore Judgment After the Substantive Valuation Proceedings Were Resolved by Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the presumption of no order as to costs was displaced in the circumstances of the valuation appeal.' "Whether it was fair and reasonable to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs from 1 March 2007 onwards."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had in substance accepted by 1 March 2007 that the correct land value was $2.95 million, subject only to issues concerning other years, yet maintained the appeal for nearly a further year until its valuer confirmed that value. Because no merit issue remained as to the valuation at the relevant base date and the respondent was put to expense defending the proceedings, the proceedings were unreasonably maintained from 1 March 2007, making it fair and reasonable to order costs from that date.

Court Disposition

Respondent's costs application granted in part.

Orders

  • ["In proceedings 31227 of 2006, the applicant is to pay the respondent's costs from 1 March 2007 as agreed or assessed, not including costs of the costs hearing on 27 March 2008."]