Tenstat Chullora No. 2 Trust v Valuer General and Anor. [2000] NSWLEC 212

Tenstat Chullora No. 2 Trust v Valuer General and Anor. [2000] NSWLEC 212

The second respondent failed to demonstrate any 'exceptional circumstances' within the meaning of the Practice Direction that would warrant a costs order against the applicant. The applicant exercised unqualified statutory rights, and the circumstances, including the second respondent's joinder and contentions, did not alter this conclusion. The motion for costs was thus dismissed, and the applicant awarded costs of resisting the motion, as these were not part of the substantive valuation appeal but separate costs following the event.

Parties
Applicant: Tenstat Chullora No. 2 Trust; First Respondent: Valuer General; Second Respondent: McWilliam's Wines Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Valuation Appeal / Costs Application Following Substantive Determination
Outcome
Second Respondent's costs motion dismissed with costs awarded to the Applicant.
Legal Topics
Land Valuation Appeals, Costs in Litigation, Practice Direction on Costs, Joinder of Parties
Administrative Law Property Law Land Valuation Appeals Costs in Litigation Practice Direction on Costs Joinder of Parties

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenstat Chullora No. 2 Trust

Applicant

Valuer General

First Respondent

McWilliam's Wines Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Valuation Appeal / Costs Application Following Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'exceptional circumstances' exist to justify a costs order against the applicant in a land valuation appeal under the Valuation of Land Act 1916 given the Court's Practice Direction.

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent failed to demonstrate any 'exceptional circumstances' within the meaning of the Practice Direction that would warrant a costs order against the applicant. The applicant exercised unqualified statutory rights, and the circumstances, including the second respondent's joinder and contentions, did not alter this conclusion. The motion for costs was thus dismissed, and the applicant awarded costs of resisting the motion, as these were not part of the substantive valuation appeal but separate costs following the event.

Court Disposition

Second Respondent's costs motion dismissed with costs awarded to the Applicant.

Orders

  • The Second Respondent’s Notice of Motion filed 13 September 2000 be dismissed.
  • The Second Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the Motion in the sum agreed, or failing agreement, as assessed.