AMP LIFE LTD and VALUER GENERAL [2007] WASAT 257

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2007] WASAT 257
Act:	VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)
Case No:	DR:322/2005	Heard:	6, 7, 8, 9, 10 NOVEMBER 2006 AND 14 DECEMBER 2006
Coram:	JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT) MR J JORDAN (MEMBER) MR R J PRIEST (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)	Delivered:	10/10/07
No of pages:	51	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Unimproved land valuations affirmed Application dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	AMP LIFE LTD VALUER GENERAL
Catchwords:	Valuation of land Site in Perth central business district "Unimproved value" Comparable sales approach Challenge to methodology and assumptions of Valuer General Concept of "standard inside lot"
Legislation:	City of Perth City Planning Scheme No 1, cl 48, cl 137, cl 138 City of Perth City Planning Scheme No 2, cl 33 City of Perth Town Planning Scheme No 16, cl 8, cl 12, cl 15 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27(2) Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4(1)
Case References:	Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (1999) 167 ALR 575 Clive Elliot Jennings & Co Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2002] WASCA 276; (2002) 122 LGERA 433 Duffy v The Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294 Luton v Valuer-General [1971] 1 NSWLR 280 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 Mt Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2005] WASAT 57 Port Macquarie West Bowling Club Ltd v The Minister [1972] 2 NSWLR 63 Royal Sydney Golf Club v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1955) 91 CLR 610 Sandhurst Trustees Ltd v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW [2006] NSWLEC 243 Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 St Martins' Centre Pty Ltd v Valuer General (2003) 30 SR (WA) 218 Wattle Park Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 6 SASR 69 Weld Club Trustees and Valuer General [2007] WASAT 256 Western Australian Planning Commission v Arcus Shopfitters Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 295
Orders	1. The valuations and land value assessments of the Valuer General be reviewed and reduced as follows:,(1) 1 August 1999 from $27,000,000 to $23,400,000;,(2) 1 August 2000 from $22,000,000 to $17,000,000; and,(3) 1 August 2003 from $22,000,000 to $17,000,000.,The Tribunal will hear from the parties as to the terms of the final orders to be made in light of these reasons.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA) CITATION : AMP LIFE LTD and VALUER GENERAL [2007] WASAT 257 MEMBER : JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT)

MR J JORDAN (MEMBER)

MR R J PRIEST (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD : 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 NOVEMBER 2006 AND 14 DECEMBER 2006 DELIVERED : 10 OCTOBER 2007 FILE NO/S : DR 322 of 2005 BETWEEN : AMP LIFE LTD

Applicant

AND

VALUER GENERAL

Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of land Site in Perth central…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AMP Life Ltd and Valuer General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] WASAT 257
Decision Date: 10 OCTOBER 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between AMP Life Limited and the Valuer General involved a dispute over the valuation of a specific piece of land situated in the central business district of Perth. The primary contention was the methodology and assumptions used by the Valuer General in determining the "unimproved value" of the land, which was essential for assessing its land value. AMP Life Limited contested the Valuer General's approach, specifically the "standard inside lot" concept used to estimate the land's value. This concept was crucial as it influenced the overall valuation of the property.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Valuer General's methodology and assumptions were appropriate and whether the "standard inside lot" concept was correctly applied. AMP Life Limited argued that the Valuer General's approach was flawed and resulted in an overvaluation of the land. The court had to determine if the methodology and assumptions used were reasonable and if the concept of a "standard inside lot" was appropriately applied to the circumstances of this particular piece of land.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the Valuer General's methodology and assumptions closely. It found that the Valuer General's approach to determining the "unimproved value" of the land and the application of the "standard inside lot" concept were not suitable for the specific circumstances of this property. The court concluded that the Valuer General's valuation was overstated and ordered a reduction in the assessed land value. The court's decision led to a significant reduction in the valuations for the land on specified dates, with the final orders to be determined based on further input from the parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The valuations and land value assessments of the Valuer General be reviewed and reduced as follows: (1) 1 August 1999 * from $27,000,000 to $23,400,000; (2) 1 August 2000 * from $22,000,000 to $17,000,000; and (3) 1 August 2003 * from $22,000,000 to $17,000,000. The Tribunal will hear from the parties as to the terms of the final orders to be made in light of these reasons.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.