Nura Capital Pty Ltd v Valuer General of New South Wales

Parties: Nura Capital Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Valuer General of New South Wales (Respondent)

Representation: Counsel:
John Bachara (agent for the Applicant)
L Waterson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor of NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/484954
2024/484956

Publication restriction: No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: The applicant appeals the Valuer General’s Determination dated 1 November 2024 pursuant to s 37(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (Valuation Act) in respect of the valuation of the land value of the property legally described as Lot 6 in Deposited Plan 308844, known as 42 Cooper Street, Strathfield NSW 2135 (the Land).

2. The proceedings fall within Class 3 of the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to s 19(b) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).

3. The statutory power or function to be exercised in determining the proceedings are s 34(3)(a) of the LEC Act and s 40(1)(b) of the Valuation Act.

4. The Applicant appeals the determination of the Valuer General made on 1 November 2024 in respect of the objection made by the Applicant to the valuation of the land value of the Land as of 1 July 2022 and 1 July 2023.

Planning Background and Site Features

2. Relevant features of the Land are as follows:

3. The Land is located on the southwestern corner of Cooper and Clarence Streets, within the suburb of Strathfield and the Local Government Area of Canada Bay. This section of Cooper Street is a two-way traffic thoroughfare whilst Clarence Street is a no through road.

4. The Land is located within an area known as the Strathfield Triangle. The Strathfield Triangle contains eight Amalgamation Patterns, (AP). The Land is located within AP1 in which there are a total of eight individual properties.

5. The Land is a corner allotment with two street frontages and is rectangular in shape.

6. The Land contains an eastern frontage of 13.41 metres to Cooper Street, a western rear boundary of 13.41 metres, a northern frontage of 39.62 metres to Clarence Street, and a southern boundary of 39.62 metres. The Land has a site area of 531.3 square metres.

7. The Land is capable of affording streetscape views from the ground level of a future multi-storey residential unit development. Development of this kind upon the Land, in amalgamation with adjoining lots, is consistent with the Strathfield Triangle Development Control Plan 2014 (STDCP).

8. At both the date the valuations were made, (DVM) of 23 July 2022 and 25 July 2023, and the valuation dates of 1 July 2022 and 1 July 2023, the Land was subject to the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 (CBLEP) and the STDCP.

9. The Land was zoned R4 – High Density Residential under the CBLEP.

Valuation objections and appeal

10. The valuation objection and history of the appeal includes:

11. On 23 January 2024, the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue issued a Land Tax Assessment Notice to the Applicant.

12. The Respondent’s valuation notice – pursuant to s 29 of the Valuation Act was contained within that Land Tax Assessment Notice, in relation to the 2022 valuation year and 2023 valuation year. The issued land values were as follows:

| 2022 valuation year | 2023 valuation year | | $2,710,000 | $2,290,000 |

3. On 8 March 2024, Mr John Bechara, as agent for the Applicant, lodged an objection on behalf of Nura Capital Pty Ltd, to the Respondent’s determination of the land value of the Land as at each of the 2022 valuation year and 2023 valuation year.
4. On 1 November 2024, pursuant to s 35B of the Valuation Act, the Respondent determined that the land value should not be changed, and disallowed the Applicant’s objection in respect of the issued land values for each of the 2022 valuation year and 2023 valuation year.
5. On 31 December 2024, the Applicant filed two Class 3 Applications pursuant to s 37(1) of the Valuation Act, appealing against the Respondent’s disallowance of its objections
6. On 8 February 2025, the Applicant filed a Statement of Facts in each proceeding, outlining the Applicant’s grounds of objection to the valuation. The Applicant contended for a valuation of $1,500,00 for the Land as at both the 2022 and 2023 valuation years
7. On 19 March 2025, the Respondent filed Contentions on Valuation Objection (COVO) in each of the proceedings. The Respondent contended the issued land value should be amended to $2,440,000 as at both the 2022 and 2023 valuation years.

Legislation - Valuation of Land Act 1916

11. Section 6A of the Valuation Act provides as follows:

6A Land value

(1) The land value of land is the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona-fide seller would require, assuming that the improvements, if any, thereon or appertaining thereto, other than land improvements, and made or acquired by the owner or the owner’s predecessor in title had not been made.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), in determining the land value of any land it shall be assumed that—

(a) the land may be used, or may continue to be used, for any purpose for which it was being used, or for which it could be used, at the date to which the valuation relates, and

(b) such improvements may be continued or made on the land as may be required in order to enable the land to continue to be so used, but nothing in this subsection prevents regard being had, in determining that value, to any other purpose for which the land may be used on the assumption that the improvements, if any, other than land improvements, referred to in subsection (1) had not been made.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), in determining the land value of any land, being land in relation to which, at the date to which the valuation relates, there was a water right—

(a) the land value shall include the value of the right, and

(b) it shall be assumed that the right shall continue to apply in relation to the land.

(4) For the purpose of determining the value of a water right, the value of any water secured by, or referable to, that right is to be ignored.

12. Further, Pt 4, ss 37-40 of the Valuation Act states:

Part 4 Appeals to Land and Environment Court

Division 1 Appeals

37 Right of appeal

(1) Any person entitled under Part 3 to object to a valuation may appeal to the Land and Environment Court if the person is dissatisfied with the Valuer-General’s determination of any such objection to the valuation concerned (whether or not the person was the objector).

(2) An appeal may not be made on the ground that the objection is taken to have been disallowed, as referred to in section 35C (4), unless written notice of the objector’s intention to appeal on that ground has been given to the Valuer-General at least 14 days before the appeal is made.

(3) No person or body has jurisdiction or power to conduct a review or hear an appeal in respect of the determination of an objection except as provided by this Part.

38 Time for appeal

(1) An appeal must be made not later than 60 days after the date of issue of the notice of the Valuer-General’s determination of the objection.

(2) The Land and Environment Court may allow a person to appeal after the 60-day period.

39 Grounds of appeal

The appellant’s and respondent’s cases on an appeal are not limited to the grounds of the objection.

40 Powers of Land and Environment Court on appeal

(1) On an appeal, the Land and Environment Court may do any one or more of the following—

(a) confirm or revoke the decision to which the appeal relates,

(b) make a decision in place of the decision to which the appeal relates,

(c) remit the matter to the Valuer-General for determination in accordance with the Court’s finding or decision.

(2) On an appeal, the appellant has the onus of proving the appellant’s case.

13. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the LEC Act between the parties, which was held on 12 May 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

14. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved determining the value of the land pursuant to s 6A of the Valuation Act and making a decision in place of the decision to which the appeals relate in relation to the 2022 and 2023 valuation years pursuant to s 40(1) of the Valuation Act.

15. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 40(1) of the Valuation Act to “make a decision in place of the decision to which the appeal relates” in relation to the land value of the Land as of 1 July 2022 and 1 July 2023.

16. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the proceedings fall within Class 3 of the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to s 19(b) of the LEC Act and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been met:

17. At the time of receiving the Land Tax Assessment Notice, the Applicant was the registered proprietor and owner of the Land as required by s 29(1)(a) of the Valuation Act.

18. At all relevant times and to present, Nura Capital Pty Ltd was the registered proprietor of Lot 6 in Deposited Plan 308844, known as 42 Cooper Street, Strathfield NSW 2135, being the land the subject of the Proceedings.

19. On 8 March 2024, pursuant to s 29(3A) of the Valuation Act, the Applicant (through its agent, Mr John Bechara) lodged an objection to the determinations. The Applicant lawfully objected to the issued land values contained in its Land Tax Assessment Notice pursuant to s 29(3A) of the Valuation Act. The Respondent’s valuation notice for the relevant valuing years pursuant to s 29 of the Valuation Act were contained within that assessment

20. The objection, pursuant to s 29(3A) of the Valuation Act, was within the 60-day period prescribed by s 35 of the Valuation Act.

21. The valuation used as the basis of the Land Tax Assessment had not been the subject of a prior objection, and as such, s 35AA of the Valuation Act did not apply.

22. On 1 November 2024, the Respondent disallowed the Applicant’s objections.

23. On 31 December 2024, the Applicant filed two Class 3 valuation objection applications.

24. The Applicant is entitled to bring these proceedings pursuant to s 37(1) of the Valuation Act, as it was dissatisfied with the Valuer-General’s determination of its objection and the Class 3 Applications were filed not later than 60 days after the issue of the Respondent’s Notice of Determination under s 38 of the Valuation Act.

25. The parties attended a conciliation conference in good faith pursuant to s 34 of the LEC Act.

26. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached an agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties (being a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions) pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

27. The Court has the power to dispose of the proceedings pursuant to an agreement reached between the parties pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

28. A decision of the Commissioner under s 34(3) is taken to be a decision of the Court, by s 34(8) of the LEC Act.

29. On an appeal under s 37 of the Valuation Act, the Land and Environment Court may make any one or more of the orders set out in s 40(1) of the Valuation Act in order to dispose of the proceedings.

30. The agreement reached between the parties to resolve the proceeding 2024/00484954 complies with s 40(1)(b) of the Valuation Act, as it makes a decision in place of the determination to which Proceeding 2024/00484954 relates and is thus a decision that the Land and Environment Court has the jurisdiction and power to make.

31. The agreement reached between the parties to resolve Proceeding 2024/00484956 complies with s 40(1)(a) of the Valuation Act, as it confirms the decision to which Proceedings 2024/00484956 relates and is thus a decision that the Land and Environment Court has the jurisdiction and power to make.

32. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3)(a) and (b) of the LEC Act for the “disposal of proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision”.

33. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

Notation:

19. The Court notes:

20. Each party is to bear its own costs of these proceedings.

Orders:

Proceedings 2024/484954

20. The Court orders:

21. The appeal is upheld.

22. Pursuant to s 40(1)(b) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, the land value of Lot 6 in Deposited Plan 308844, known as 42 Cooper Street, Strathfield NSW 2135 as at 1 July 2022 is determined to be $2,400,000.

Proceedings 2024/484956

21. The Court orders:

22. The appeal is dismissed.

23. Pursuant to s 40(1)(a) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916, the land value of Lot 6 in Deposited Plan 308844, known as 42 Cooper Street, Strathfield NSW 2135 as at 1 July 2023 is confirmed as $2,290,000.

M Davidson

Acting Commissioner of the Court

**********