Valuer-General v Perilya Broken Hill Ltd [2013] NSWCA 265

Valuer-General v Perilya Broken Hill Ltd [2013] NSWCA 265

The Land and Environment Court erred in law by determining the value of the hypothetical fee simple for land used as a mine under s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act on the basis that minerals are privately owned, allowing for the Ministerial royalty payments under s 284(1), but omitting the significant receipts of royalty to the owner under s 284(2); both are material and must be accounted for in the valuation methodology.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['valuation of Land Used as a Mine' 'royalty Entitlements Under Mining Act' 'appeals Limited to Questions of Law' 'methods of Valuation (cashflow/royalty)' 'duty to Give Reasons']
['valuation Law' 'mining Law' 'administrative Law'] ['valuation of Land Used as a Mine' 'royalty Entitlements Under Mining Act' 'appeals Limited to Questions of Law' 'methods of Valuation (cashflow/royalty)' 'duty to Give Reasons']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Land and Environment Court erred in failing to bring to account royalty receipts by landowner under Mining Act s 284(2)' 'Proper methodology for valuation of land used as a mine under Valuation of Land Act s 6A' 'Extent of duty to give reasons in appeals limited to questions of law' 'Treatment of privately versus publicly owned minerals in valuation methodology']

Ratio Decidendi

The Land and Environment Court erred in law by determining the value of the hypothetical fee simple for land used as a mine under s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act on the basis that minerals are privately owned, allowing for the Ministerial royalty payments under s 284(1), but omitting the significant receipts of royalty to the owner under s 284(2); both are material and must be accounted for in the valuation methodology.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the orders of the Land and Environment Court of 19 October 2012.' 'Remit the proceedings to the Land and Environment Court for determination by that Court in accordance with the decision of this Court.' 'There be no order as to costs of the appeal.']