Kemp Investments (NSW) Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2012] NSWLEC 253

Kemp Investments (NSW) Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2012] NSWLEC 253

Because both parties supported separate determination, the determination was likely to resolve the proceedings without valuation evidence, and there was no factual controversy between the parties for that purpose, it was appropriate to order separate determination of reformulated questions concerning whether the structures on the two lots were improvements within s 6A(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Proceedings Arising From Objections Against the Valuer General's Determination of Land Value Under S37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Interlocutory Application for Separate Questions to Be Determined Under Pt 28 R 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Outcome
Separate questions ordered; leave given to approach the Registrar for a hearing date and timetable directions made.
Legal Topics
['separate Question' 'preliminary Hearing' 'valuation Objections' 'improvements Under S 6 A(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916']
['procedure' 'land Valuation'] ['separate Question' 'preliminary Hearing' 'valuation Objections' 'improvements Under S 6 A(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916']

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 Proceedings Arising From Objections Against the Valuer General's Determination of Land Value Under S37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 / Interlocutory Application for Separate Questions to Be Determined Under Pt 28 R 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether separate questions should be determined separately from other issues in the Class 3 proceedings under Pt 28 r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' 'Whether determination of the separate questions was likely to resolve the proceedings without valuation evidence.' 'Whether structures erected on 98 and 100 Yarrara Road, Pennant Hills were improvements within the meaning of s 6A(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, apart from land improvements within s 4.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because both parties supported separate determination, the determination was likely to resolve the proceedings without valuation evidence, and there was no factual controversy between the parties for that purpose, it was appropriate to order separate determination of reformulated questions concerning whether the structures on the two lots were improvements within s 6A(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.

Court Disposition

Separate questions ordered; leave given to approach the Registrar for a hearing date and timetable directions made.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Pt 28, r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, the Court ordered that the specified questions concerning structures on 98 and 100 Yarrara Road, Pennant Hills be determined separately from any other or further issue in the proceedings.' 'Leave was given to the parties to approach the Registrar...