Wild Oaks Properties Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2018] NSWLEC 192

Wild Oaks Properties Pty Ltd v Valuer General [2018] NSWLEC 192

The Applicant failed to establish entitlement to separate valuations under either s 27(1) or (2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. The lands are operated as a single farming entity, and the mandatory requirements for separate valuation under s 27 are not met. Section 28A does not confer on the Valuer-General or the Court the power to determine rateable or taxable parts; thus, the decision not to separately value the lots was correct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Valuation Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; Valuer-General’s decisions confirmed.
Legal Topics
['parcel Valuation' 'dominant Use' 'primary Production Exemption' 'statutory Construction']
['valuation of Land' 'land Tax' 'local Government'] ['parcel Valuation' 'dominant Use' 'primary Production Exemption' 'statutory Construction']

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

Valuation Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether three lots of land should be valued separately as two parcels of land under the Valuation of Land Act 1916' 'Whether the dominant uses of the parcels require separate valuation for tax purposes' 'Whether sections 27(2) or 28A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 apply to require separate valuation']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant failed to establish entitlement to separate valuations under either s 27(1) or (2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. The lands are operated as a single farming entity, and the mandatory requirements for separate valuation under s 27 are not met. Section 28A does not confer on the Valuer-General or the Court the power to determine rateable or taxable parts; thus, the decision not to separately value the lots was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; Valuer-General’s decisions confirmed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal 2018/259146 dismissed. Decision not to separately value Lots 101 and 102 from Lot 2 as at 1 July 2015 confirmed.' 'Appeal 2018/74396 dismissed. Decision not to separately value Lots 101 and 102 from Lot 2 as at 1 July 2016 confirmed.' 'Appeal 2018/259147 dismissed. Decision not to separately value Lots 101...