Fitzgerald v Valuer General [2011] NSWLEC 1196

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fitzgerald v Valuer General [2011] NSWLEC 1196 Hearing dates: 17 June 2011 Decision date: 17 June 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Moore SC Decision: Notice of Motion to vacate hearing date dismissed Catchwords: Application to vacate hearing date Legislation Cited: Valuation of Land Act 1916 Civil Procedure Act 2005 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: B W Fitzgerald (Applicant) Valuer General (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Applicant in person Mr N Broadbent (Respondent) Solicitors Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 30012 of 2011

EXTEMPORE Judgment This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication. 1By Notice of Motion, Mr Fitzgerald seeks to vacate the hearing date in this valuation appeal on the basis that, if he is successful in Class 1 proceedings known as Matter No 10377 of 2011, he will discontinue this valuation appeal. 2For the purposes only of informing myself of the nature of the proceedings that are canvassed in the Class 1 appeal, I have obtained and read the file for that appeal. The parties have accepted this to be appropriate for this Notice of Motion hearing. 3The Class 1 appeal concerns an application by Mr. Fitzgerald to subdivide his present allotment (subject to this valuation appeal) into six allotments and it is an appeal against a refusal by Gosford City Council to permit that subdivision. In reading the Class 1 file for the purposes of ascertaining the nature of the application, I have formed no view about (and it would be improper for me to consider) any issue concerning the merits of the subdivision proposal. 4The purpose for me reading that file was to understand the nature of the proceedings contained in it compare them to the nature of the proceedings that are subject of this appeal, pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act 1916, to the statutory valuation of Mr. Fitzgerald's property as at the base date of 1 July 2009. There is, on any conceivable construction of the two matters, no linkage between them. 5Whilst it is not uncommon, where there are development appeal proceedings in Class 1 and related proceedings concerning the same or associated properties in, for example, Class 4 civil enforcement proceedings or order appeal proceedings in Class 1, for these latter proceedings to be stood over pending the outcome of the development appeal that is relevant to them, there is no such linkage in this case. 6I note that Mr. Broadbent, counsel for the Valuer General, has indicated that there is no objection to the vacation of the hearing date. 7However that is not a matter that terminates my consideration of the issue. My consideration also relates to the efficient allocation of the Court's resources (being public resources) to deal with and dispose of these matters in conformity with the objectives for the Court set out in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 to effect the just, quick and cheap determination of the real issues in dispute between the parties. 8Although the matter in the Class 1 proceedings is set down for an on-site hearing on 25 July, there is no guarantee that the matter will be finalised on that date and it is possible that the matter would be reserved - thus requiring, if these proceedings were to be vacated, the potentiality of a minimum of over six weeks before a new date could be set for this matter if Mr. Fitzgerald were to be unsuccessful in his Class 1 proceedings and the possibility of some considerably longer period of time if the merit decision were reserved. 9As there is no relevant linkage between the two proceedings and thus no basis to postpone determination of this appeal, I dismiss the Notice of Motion and the hearing will proceed as set down on Tuesday next commencing at Gosford Courthouse at 10 AM. Tim Moore Senior Commissioner 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. Decision last updated: 15 July 2011