Background
Esperia Court Pty Limited challenged the Valuer General’s land valuations for Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 173685, known as 2-10 Churchill Avenue, Strathfield. The issued land value was $23.9 million as at 1 July 2023 and $19.3 million as at 1 July 2024. The Valuer General disallowed Esperia Court’s objections, and the company brought two Class 3 appeals under the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW).
The Court conducted a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW). The parties subsequently agreed on terms resolving both proceedings, including revised land values for the two valuation dates. Each party was to bear its own costs.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Davidson found that the statutory prerequisites for the appeals had been satisfied, including the requirements governing objections and appeal time limits. The agreed decision was one the Court could properly make by exercising its power under s 40(1) of the Valuation of Land Act to substitute its own valuation decisions.
Because the parties’ agreement was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with it. The Court upheld both appeals and determined the land value to be $20,114,150 as at 1 July 2023 and $18,121,900 as at 1 July 2024.
Key Takeaways
- The Court reduced the 2023 land value from $23.9 million to $20,114,150.
- The Court reduced the 2024 land value from $19.3 million to $18,121,900.
- A conciliation agreement under s 34 may be entered as the Court’s decision when the agreed outcome is within the Court’s jurisdiction and could properly have been made in the exercise of its functions.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how New South Wales land-valuation appeals can be resolved through court-supervised conciliation. Even where the parties agree on revised values, the Court must still confirm that jurisdictional requirements are met and that the proposed decision falls within its statutory powers.
For taxpayers and valuation practitioners, the case also shows that an unsuccessful objection to a valuation may lead to materially lower substituted values on appeal, including through a negotiated resolution approved by the Court.