Valuer-General v Kogarah Town Centre Pty Limited [2014] NSWLEC 186

Valuer-General v Kogarah Town Centre Pty Limited [2014] NSWLEC 186

The Commissioners erred in law by accepting that the Valuer-General's s 28 apportionment was incorrect but then applying the correct apportionment only to the Kogarah PID and confirming the incorrect apportioned values for the Rockdale PID because those values would increase. Once the incorrect apportionment ground...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Appeal Under S 56 a of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 on Questions of Law From Commissioners' Valuation Appeal Decision / Further Appeal From Kogarah Town Centre Pty Limited V Valuer General (no 3) [2014] NSWLEC 1124
Outcome
Appeals allowed.
Legal Topics
['valuer General Valuations' 'apportionment of Land Value' 'adjoining Parcels in One Valuation' 'powers of the Land and Environment Court on Appeal' 'questions of Law Under S 56 A']
['valuation of Land' 'administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['valuer General Valuations' 'apportionment of Land Value' 'adjoining Parcels in One Valuation' 'powers of the Land and Environment Court on Appeal' 'questions of Law Under S 56 A']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeal Under S 56 a of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 on Questions of Law From Commissioners' Valuation Appeal Decision / Further Appeal From Kogarah Town Centre Pty Limited V Valuer General (no 3) [2014] NSWLEC 1124

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Commissioners erred in law by not applying the correct s 28 Valuation of Land Act 1916 apportionment to both the Kogarah PID and the Rockdale PID after finding the Valuer-General's apportionment was incorrect." 'Whether s 40(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 empowered or required the Court to make a decision increasing an apportioned value where the correct apportionment increased the value of one part of land included in one valuation under s 26.' 'Whether the applicant had discharged the onus under s 40(2) once the incorrect apportionment ground under s 34(1)(c) was established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioners erred in law by accepting that the Valuer-General's s 28 apportionment was incorrect but then applying the correct apportionment only to the Kogarah PID and confirming the incorrect apportioned values for the Rockdale PID because those values would increase. Once the incorrect apportionment ground was established, s 40(1)(b) read with the mandatory terms of s 28(2) empowered and required the Court to give full effect to the correct apportionment for both parts of the land included in one s 26 valuation, even though that decreased the Kogarah PID values and increased the Rockdale PID values.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed.

Orders

  • ['The appeals are allowed.' 'In Matter No 31133 of 2012, for PID 1502216 (Kogarah PID) at base date 1 July 2007, the appeal is upheld and the value is $3,247,020.' 'In Matter No 31133 of 2012, for PID 1536207 (Rockdale PID) at base date 1 July 2007, the appeal is upheld and the value is $2,152,980.' 'In Matter No...