Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

(2001) 51 NSWLR 673; [2001] NSWCA 78

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Taxes and Duties
2. › Land Tax
3. › Assessment of land value
4. › Land improvements
5. › Whether retaining walls supporting filled land constitute land improvements
6. › Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW), ss 4(1), 6A(1)
1. Taxes and Duties
2. › Land Tax
3. › Assessment of land value
4. › Scarcity factor
5. › Whether deduction to be made for scarcity premium on vacant land when determining land value of developed land
6. › Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW), s 6A(1)
1. Taxes and Duties
2. › Land Tax
3. › Assessment of land value
4. › Valuation methodology
5. › Whether decision to determine land value on basis of comparable sales of vacant land rather than improved land involved error of law
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Judicial discretion
4. › Practice directions
5. › Whether practice direction can impose rigid fetter on judicial discretion as to costs
6. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 69(2)

Quick Take

Retaining walls supporting filled and levelled land on sloping terrain are land improvements under s 4(1)(d) of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW) and their value must be included in the land value. When determining land value of developed land under s 6A(1), no deduction is to be made for a scarcity premium that vacant land commands in the locality — the hypothetical sale is of vacant land situated in the neighbourhood as it exists. A Practice Direction of the Land and Environment Court purporting to restrict costs orders in Class 3 land tax appeals to exceptional circumstances cannot validly fetter the judicial discretion conferred by s 69(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.