Kemp Investments (NSW) Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2012] NSWLEC 253

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kemp Investments (NSW) Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2012] NSWLEC 253 Hearing dates: 9 November 2012 Decision date: 09 November 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Craig J Decision: Orders are set out at [11] of the judgment Catchwords: PROCEDURE - application for separate question to be heard in Class 3 proceedings - whether separate and preliminary question should be ordered - parties agree that determination of the separate question likely to resolve the proceedings - separate question ordered Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Valuation of Land Act 1916 Cases Cited: Reysson v Roads and Traffic Authority [2011] NSWLEC 153 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Kemp Investments (NSW) Pty Ltd (First applicant) Timothy John Flaherty (Second applicant) Valuer-General (Respondent) Representation: T J Flaherty (Applicants) M R M Carpenter (Respondent) Michael Flaherty Solicitor (Applicants) I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 30772 and 30773 of 2012

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1The applicants, Kemp Investments (NSW) Pty Limited and Timothy Flaherty, seek an order for the separate determination of two questions pursuant to Pt 28 r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (UCPR). 2By application dated 27 July 2012, the applicants commenced two interrelated proceedings in Class 3 of the Court's jurisdiction. They arise from objections against the Valuer-General's determination of land value made for 1 July 2011 and are brought pursuant to s37 of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. The land concerned consists of two adjoining lots known as 98 and 100 Yarrara Road, Pennant Hills. Apparently a single building straddles those lots. 3In accordance with s 6A(1)of the Valuation of Land Act, the Valuer-General determined that the land value of each lot was $519,000. It is the applicants' contention, as I understand it, that when determining the land value of each lot, the Valuer-General should not have disregarded the building or structures that straddles those lots for the purpose of s 6A(1). If their contention in this regard is correct, a land value of $300,000 per lot would result. 4The separate questions that the applicants frame and seek to have determined are: "1. Are the man-made structures erected on 98 Yarrara Road, excluding the land improvements, determined to be improvements in respect of s6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916. 2. Are the man-made structures erected on 100 Yarrara Road, excluding the land improvements, determined to be improvements in respect of s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916." 5The Valuer-General supports the determination of a separate question.