Bellbird Ridge Pty Limited as Trustee for Bellbird Ridge Unit Trust v Valuer General [2015] NSWLEC 142

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bellbird Ridge Pty Limited as Trustee for Bellbird Ridge Unit Trust v Valuer General [2015] NSWLEC 142 Hearing dates: 31 July 2015 Date of orders: 31 July 2015 Decision date: 31 July 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Pain J Decision: Leave is granted to commence these proceedings. Catchwords: PROCEDURE: leave to appeal out of time granted Legislation Cited: Taxation Administration Act 1996 Valuation of Land Act 1916 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Bellbird Ridge Pty Limited as Trustee for Bellbird Ridge Unit Trust (Applicant) Valuer General (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr S Klotz, solicitor (Applicant) Ms S Gordon, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors: Norton Rose Fulbright (Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 30512 of 2015, 30545 of 2015, 30546 of 2015 and 30547 of 2015

extempore Judgment 1. I have before me two motions in four matters numbers 30512, 30545, 30546 and 30547. The first motion I am determining is whether or not an order should be made pursuant to s 38(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 that leave be granted to commence these proceedings out of time. An affidavit in support of that application of Mr Stephen Klotz of 23 July 2015 has been served and read. This sets out the background to how the valuations in relation to four properties for the base date years 2010 to 2014 came to be in dispute with the Valuer General, identifies that the decision was made to proceed with Supreme Court proceedings number 2014/363026 on the basis that these properties are exempt from land tax as provided for under the Taxation Administration Act 1996. Clearly, that is a fundamental issue that would ideally be resolved before the valuation appeals are heard in this matter. As there is absence of any prejudice caused to the Valuer General, that is not a matter that need concern me. 2. In terms of whether or not there is an arguable case, I have been provided with a table which shows that, certainly in the earlier years, a quite substantial difference between the Valuer General's valuation and that contended for by the Applicant. It is not necessary that I resolve at all whether there is a particularly strong or arguable case. It does appear there is an issue in dispute between the parties. 3. The affidavit of Mr Klotz provides an explanation for the delay which I accept. In the circumstances of this case, I consider that delay is not excessive. 4. I will make the order sought.