Richtech v Valuer-General (2) [2005] NSWLEC 29

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Richtech v Valuer-General (2) [2005] NSWLEC 29

Richtech Pty Ltd Applicant

PARTIES : Valuer-General Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S) : 30349-30374 of 2004

CORAM: Roseth SC

KEY ISSUES: Costs :- whether costs should be awarded where the value determined by the Court is closer to the value contended by the applicant than the Valuer-General

DATES OF HEARING: 07/02/2005

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/2005

Mr N Bilinsky, barrister LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr J Maston, barrister

JUDGMENT: - 4 - THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Roseth SC

9 May 2005

30349-30374 of 2004 Richtech Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (2)

JUDGMENT 1 Senior Commissioner: This is an application for costs in respect of 26 appeals against the valuation of land at Seaside City south of Tweed Heads in which the applicant was successful (Richtech Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2004] NSWLEC 291). The applicant now seeks the award of costs.

Background 2 On 22 June 2004 the Court found that the total value of the land was $1,376,000. The Valuer-General had valued it at $7,535,000, while the applicant contended that the correct value was $1,042,000. The two issues that went to the heart of the decision were: · whether the land had a reasonable prospect of development within the short to medium term (ie within a five-year period); and · whether the comparable sales used by the Valuer-General's expert witness could reasonably be applied to the subject land. 3 The first of these issues was a planning issue, relevant to a town planner. The second was a valuation issue relevant to a valuer. The respondent filed and served expert reports by a planner and a valuer within the time constraints imposed by the Court. The applicant produced expert reports by a planner and valuer on the day of the hearing. In the event the Court accepted the applicant's evidence, concluding that the land had no development potential in the short to medium term, and that the comparable sales on which the Valuer-General relied were so different from the subject land that they could not be reasonably applied.