Valuer-General v Perilya Broken Hill Ltd

(2013) 195 LGERA 416; [2013] NSWCA 265

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Valuation
2. › Land valuation
3. › Methods of valuation
4. › Hypothetical fee simple of mine
5. › Discounted cashflow methodology
6. › Whether failure to bring to account royalty receipts under s 284(2) Mining Act 1992 constituted error of law
7. › Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW), s 6A
8. › Mining Act 1992 (NSW), ss 282, 283, 284
1. Valuation
2. › Land valuation
3. › Hypothetical fee simple
4. › Public laws of general application
5. › Mining legislation as law of general application affecting valuation
6. › Nature of rights conferred by mining lease
7. › Nature of rights of owner of privately owned minerals
8. › Valuation of Land Act 1916 (NSW), s 6A
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal on question of law
3. › Scope of appeal
4. › Whether failure to account for cashflow component constitutes error of law
5. › Whether arithmetic error constitutes error of law
6. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 57
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Statement of reasons for decision
3. › Appeal limited to question of law
4. › Extent of duty to give reasons
5. › Whether short reasons adequate where dispute involves question of practice rather than intellectual exchange
6. › Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 38

Quick Take

When valuing mining land under s 6A of the Valuation of Land Act 1916 by discounted cashflow, if the methodology descends to the detail of including the s 284(1) Mining Act royalty payable by the mining lease holder to the Minister as an operating expense, the s 284(2) royalty receivable by the owner of privately owned minerals must also be brought to account. The question whether s 6A requires the assumption that minerals are privately owned (free of any Crown reservation) was left open.