> Land and Environment Court of New South Wales CITATION : Peter John Earl v Valuer General [2003] NSWLEC 326 APPLICANT Peter John Earl PARTIES : RESPONDENT Valuer General FILE NUMBER(S) : 30836 of 2003 CORAM: Hussey C KEY ISSUES: Valuation of Land :- LEGISLATION CITED: Valuation of Land Act 1916 CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 31 October 2003 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 10/31/2003 APPLICANT Mr F Santisi SOLICITORS Palony & Partners LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr J Whyte Instructed by Crown Solicitors JUDGMENT: IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES 30836 of 2003 Hussey C 2 December 2003 Peter John Earl Applicant v Valuer General Respondent Judgment 1 I am going to complete the matter now and I will not repeat what I said before we just had that last submission, because I want to give the applicant every opportunity to present their case today but there has just been problems and I think that those problems are not sufficient to adjourn the matter any further, because looking at the timetable on the Court file there has been adequate opportunity to present a reasonable case that could have been dealt with and fairly assessed. 2 As it turns out, I have the report of Mr Hood, who is a registered valuer. There is no expert challenge to his report and his report seems to follow reasonable methodology accepted in the valuation of properties whereby he compares other comparative sales in the area and he subdivided the area into the clear grazing land, the undulating land and the hilly land and he seems, in my opinion, to have done a fair assessment of that. He confirms the VG valuation is not too high and as I said, in the absence of any challenge, I accept that evidence. 3 On that basis then the Court's order is: 1. That the appeal is dismissed. 2. The exhibits remain on the Court's file. __________________ R Hussey Commissioner of the Court rjs DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.