COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SYDNEY v GARBETT PTY LTD SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL KIRBY P, PRIESTLEY and HANDLEY JJA 3 August 1994 [1994] NSWCA 68 Kirby P, Priestley and Handley JJA The orders. following the publication by the court of its reasons in these appeals, the parties were unable to agree on the form of the orders. The principal difference between them was that Garbett wanted the proceedings remitted to the Land and Environment Court with a view to that court dealing with possible further arguments about aspects of the rate notices not raised in the appeal. Involved in this argument was a question whether a rate notice can be partly valid. Not a word was said about this during the argument of the appeal. What the parties wanted decided was whether Garbett and Chalford were rateable at the times asserted by the Council. This was decided by the court. In the circumstances we do not think it would be appropriate to remit the proceedings to the Land and Environment Court. We propose to dispose finally of the matters that were raised before us, and leave the parties to take their own course in regard to matters they did not raise. The wording of the orders is intended to reflect the court's decisions of the issues actually argued by the parties and of no other issues. In case the form of the orders creates problems that we do not see at the moment, we will grant liberty to apply in those matters where we have held rate notices were valid in part. This liberty does not extend to any of the issues we have decided, but is granted solely in case it becomes expedient (contrary to our present understanding) to give directions concerning the disposition in the Land and Environment court of issues not decided by us in the appeals. In considering the parties' arguments about the orders our attention has been drawn to another matter not dealt with in the argument of the appeals themselves, namely, the bringing of both Class 3 and Class 4 proceedings in the Land and Environment court, when, as seems likely to us, Class 3 proceedings alone were appropriate. It may be that some of the orders sought in the class 4 proceedings as a result of our decision in the appeals are outside the scope of such proceedings. However, as we have not heard argument on these questions, it does not seem useful on this occasion to go further into them beyond noting that although we see no harm in making the orders at this stage of the present cases, we will not in future embark on appeals in such duplicated proceedings until satisfied both that there is some utility in doing so and that the matters sought to be argued are within Class 4 jurisdiction. A. (a) Appeal from Land & Environment Court Proceedings No 30612/1991, (Application Class 3): 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Judgment of Bannon J set aside. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS 3. The appeal or objection dated 4 October 1991 against the appellant's decision to issue the Rate Notice Assessment Number 11238-00000-5-000, Due Date 11 October 1991 is upheld in part and dismissed in part, to the extent stated in para4, paraS and para6 following. 4. Declare that Citistate Corporation Ltd is not liable to the appellant for any amount under the said Rate Notice. 5. Declare that as against Garbett Pty Ltd the said Rate Notice is valid in the amount of $50,625 set out in the said Rate Notice and is not valid in the amount of $30,550 set out in the said Rate Notice. 6. Cross-appeal dismissed. 7. No order as to costs of the proceedings in the Land & Environment Court. 8. No order as to costs of the Appeal and the Cross-appeal in this court. 9. Liberty to apply for the limited purposes stated in the reasons published today. (b) Appeal from Land & Environment Court Proceedings No 40101/1992, (Application Class 4): 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Judgment of Bannon J set aside. 3. The application dated 22 May 1992 for a declaration that Rate Notice Assessment Number 11238-00000-5-000, Due Date 11 October 1991 was not validly or properly issued is dismissed; the extent of its validity is stated in para4, para5 and para6 following. 4. Declare that Citistate Corporation Ltd is not liable to the appellant for any amount under the said Rate Notice. 5. Declare that as against Garbett Pty Ltd the said Rate Notice is valid in the amount of $50,625 set out in the said Rate Notice and is not valid in the amount of $30,550 set out in the said Rate Notice. 6. Cross-appeal dismissed. 7. No order as to costs of the proceedings in the Land & Environment Court. 8. No order as to costs of the Appeal and the Cross-appeal in this court. 9. Liberty to apply for the limited purposes stated in the reasons published today. B. (a) Appeal from Land & Environment Court Proceedings No 30613/1991, (Application Class 3): 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Judgment of Bannon J set aside. 3. The appeal or objection dated 4 October 1991 against the appellant's decision to issue the Rate Notice Assessment Number 11237-00000-2-000, Due Date 11 October 1991 is upheld in part and dismissed in part, to the extent stated in para4, para5 and para6 following. 4. Declare that Citistate Corporation Ltd is not liable to the appellant for any amount under the said Rate Notice. 5. Declare that as against Chalford Pty Ltd the said Rate Notice is valid in the amount of $64,800 set out in the said Rate Notice and is not valid in the amounts of $104,668, $305,637, $129,075, $38,532 and $39,104 set out in the said Rate Notice. 6. Cross-appeal dismissed. 7. No order as to costs of the proceedings in the Land & Environment Court. 8. No order as to costs of the Appeal and the Cross-appeal in this court. WRQUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SYDNEY v GARBETT PTY LTD (Kirby P, Priestley an@ Handley JJA) 9. Liberty to apply for the limited purposes stated in the reasons published today. (b) Appeal from Land & Environment Court Proceedings No 40102/1992, (Application Class 4): 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Judgment of Bannon J set aside. 3. The application dated 22 May 1992 for a declaration that Rate Notice Assessment Number 11238-00000-5-000, Due Date 11 October 1991 was not validly or properly issued is dismissed; the extent of its validity is declared in para4, paraS and para6 following. 4. Declare that Citistate Corporation Ltd is not liable to the appellant for any amount under the said Rate Notice. 5. Declare that as against Chalford Pty Ltd the said Rate Notice is valid in the amount of $64,800 set out in the said Rate Notice and is not valid in the amounts of $104,668, $305,637, $ 129,075, $38,532 and $39,104 set out in the said Rate Notice. 6. Cross-appeal dismissed. 7. No order as to costs of the proceedings in the Land & Environment Court. 8. No order as to costs of the Appeal and the Cross-appeal in this court. 9. Liberty to apply for the limited purposes stated in the reasons published today. C. (a) Appeal from Land & Environment Court Proceedings No 30082/1992 (Application Class 3): 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Judgment of Bannon J set aside. 3. The appeal or objection dated 5 February 1992 against the appellant's decision to issue the Rate Notice Assessment Number 11238-00000-5-000, Due Date 3 February 1992 is upheld in part and dismissed in part, to the extent stated in para4, para5 and para6 following. 4. Declare that Citistate Corporation Ltd is not liable to the appellant for any amount under the said Rate Notice. 5. Declare that as against Garbett Pty Ltd the said Rate Notice is valid in the amount of $51,596 set out in the said Rate Notice and is not valid in the amount of $81,175 set out in the said Rate Notice. 6. Cross-appeal dismissed. 7. No order as to costs of the proceedings in the Land & Environment Court. 8. No order as to costs of the Appeal and the Cross-appeal in this court. 9. Liberty to apply for the limited purposes stated in the reasons published today. (b) Appeal from Land & Environment Court Proceedings No 40103/1992, (Application Class 4): 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Judgment of Bannon J set aside. 3. The application dated 22 May 1992 for a declaration that Rate Notice Assessment Number 11238-00000-5-000, Due Date 3 February 1992 was not validly or properly issued is dismissed; the extent of its validity is stated in para4, para5 and para6 following. 4. Declare that Citistate Corporation Ltd is not liable to the appellant for any amount under the said Rate Notice. 5. Declare that as against Garbett Pty Ltd the said Rate Notice is valid in the amount of $51,596 set out in the said Rate Notice and is not valid in the amount of $81,175 set out in the said Rate Notice. 4 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS 6. Cross-appeal dismissed. 7. No order as to costs of the proceedings in the Land & Environment Court. 8. No order as to costs of the Appeal and the Cross-appeal in this court. 9. Liberty to apply for the limited purposes stated in the reasons published 5 today. D. (a) Appeal from Land & Environment Court Proceedings No 30083/1992, (Application Class 3): 1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Cross-appeal dismissed. 10 3. No order as to costs of the proceedings in the Land & Environment Court. 4. No order as to costs of the Appeal and Cross-appeal in this court. (b) Appeal from Land & Environment Court Proceedings No 40104/1992, (Application Class 4): 1. Appeal dismissed. 15 2. Cross-appeal dismissed. 3. No order as to costs of the proceedings in the Land & Environment Court. 4. No order as to costs of the Appeal and the Cross-appeal in this court.