Gray v Valuer-General [2005] NSWLEC 513

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Gray v Valuer-General [2005] NSWLEC 513

APPLICANT Dr A B Gray PARTIES : RESPONDENT Valuer-General

FILE NUMBER(S) : 05/30270 of 2005

CORAM: Moore C

KEY ISSUES: Valuation of Land :-

LEGISLATION CITED: Valuation of Land Act 1916

CASES CITED: Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2003) 212 CLR 111

DATES OF HEARING: 25 and 26 August 2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 08/26/2005

APPLICANT In person

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Ms A Pearman, barrister INSTRUCTED BY Crown Solicitor

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES MOORE C

26 August 2005

05/30270 Dr A B Gray v Valuer General

JUDGMENT 1 COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (the Act) against the valuation determined by the Valuer General for a property at 24 Waratah Crescent, Minnie Water (the site). 2 The applicant, Dr Gray, is a self-represented litigant and is not legally qualified. As a consequence of that I have provided to him the usual assistance which is provided by a member of this Court to an unrepresented litigant by explaining to Dr Gray the process that is to be followed and to ensure that he has had ample opportunity to present his case to the Court.

3 The statutory onus that applies in these proceedings is that which is set out in s 40(2) of the Act, namely, that the applicant has the onus to show why the valuation proposed by the Valuer General should be disturbed. 4 In these proceedings a novel path has been followed by Dr Gray's as his initial position was that he wished to question the validity of the underlying basis of the valuation process adopted by the Valuer General and supported, in the evidence in these proceedings, by the independent valuation evidence put to the Court by Ms Chapman, who was commissioned to undertake the supporting revaluation process for these proceedings. 5 It is long settled (and recently confirmed by the High Court's decision in Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2003) 212 CLR 111) that a comparative valuation process making relevant adjustments for positive and negative factors of comparison between properties is the appropriate and preferable course to be followed in undertaking a valuation assessment.