Justin John Enterprises Pty Ltd v Valuer-General

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|1997-07-01|Before: Cowdroy J, Ms J

The applicant contends that the vacant lot should be separately valued for rating purposes from 252 George Street Sydney. The applicant relies upon the provisions of s 26(1) which provide:- 26 Where lands are to be included in one valuation (1) Where several parcels of land adjoin, are owned by the same person, and where no part is leased, they shall be included in one valuation, unless the Valuer-General otherwise directs: Provided that any such parcels of land shall be valued separately if buildings are erected thereon which are obviously adapted to separate occupation. The applicant contends that at the date of valuation, there was no means of access between the subject lands and historically the vacant lot had a separate building erected thereon. Each of these considerations is irrelevant.

The words of 26(1) of the Act " if buildings are erected thereon " refers to " such parcels of land ". A building or buildings upon one parcel does not satisfy the requirement that there be buildings on each of the parcels of land held in common ownership and adapted to separate occupation. The fact that no building exists on the vacant land at the base date disqualifies the applicant's entitlement to rely upon the proviso.

The questions asked of the Court are to be answered as follows:-

Structures erected on land which reduce rather than enhance the value of land are "improvements" for the purpose of the definition contained in s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916.
The two lots the subject land of the valuation in dispute should not have been separately valued as at the relevant base date of 1 July 1997.

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.

Valuation of Land Act 1944(Qld)

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales CITATION: Justin John Enterprises Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [1999] NSWLEC 208

Their Lordships thus confirmed that it was irrelevant to consider whether the physical improvements on the land resulted in an increase in the value of the land. The approach was consistent with the Privy Council in Toohey's namely that improvements made at the owners expense to the land were to be excluded (see Tetzner at 55 - 56). Tetzner was applied in Randwick Municipal Council v Valuer-General; In re Kensington Golf Links Ltd [1960] NSWR 778; (1960) 5 LGRA 387 by Sugerman J and Toohey's was applied by him in Peelmont Pty Ltd v Valuer-General (No 1) 1963 80 W.N. 1545; 1962 NSWR 376. Toohey's was also applied in Wunderlich Ltd v Valuer-General (1959) 5 LGRA 50.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (6)

Cited By (3)