CHEVRON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and VALUERGENERAL - [2018] WASAT 38

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:   CHEVRON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and VALUERGENERAL [2018] WASAT 38
MEMBER:   DEPUTY PRESIDENT, JUDGE SHARP
HEARD:   22 MAY 2018
DELIVERED          :   1 JUNE 2018
FILE NO/S:   CC 2501 of 2017
BETWEEN:   CHEVRON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
VALUER-GENERAL
Respondent
SHIRE OF ASHBURTON
Applicant for joinder

Catchwords:

Valuation of land - Review - Application to be joined as party - Application for leave to intervene

Legislation:

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 37, s 37(3), s 38, s 38(1), s 38(1)(b)
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 32(1), s 32(5), s 33, s 33(2), s 34, s 36(1)

Result:

The Shire of Ashburton's application is refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	D Jackson
Respondent	:	Ms C Ide
Applicant for joinder	:	Mr PL Wittkuhn

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Applicant for joinder	:	McLeods

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth of Australia (1980) 146 CLR 493
FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd v Minister for Indigenous Affairs [2012] WASAT 31
Griffin Windfarm Holdings Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2012] WASAT 224
Holman v W&D Moffatt Pty Ltd [2015] WASAT 100
Homestyle Pty Ltd v City of Belmont [1999] WASCA 59
ING Development Australia Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission (2008) 59 SR (WA) 184; [2008] WASAT 104 at [28]
Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579
Pitt v Environment Resources and Development Court (1995) 66 SASR 274
Re State Administrative Tribunal; Ex parte McCourt (2007) 34 WAR 342; [2007] WASCA 125
Wattleup Road Development Company Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2014] WASAT 29

REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

In August 2015, the respondent (Valuer-General) made a determination of the unimproved value of certain land in the Shire of Ashburton owned by the Western Australian Land Authority (or LandCorp) and leased to the applicant (Chevron). Chevron objected to the valuation and, dissatisfied with the decision of the Valuer-General on that objection, in November 2017, Chevron sought a review by the Tribunal of the Valuer-General's decision under s 33(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) (Act). The matter was referred to the Tribunal on 1 December 2017.
In the meantime, by an application dated 11 April 2018, the Shire of Ashburton (Shire) applied to the Tribunal under s 38 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) to be joined as a party in the proceeding or, alternatively, to be given leave to intervene in the proceeding, pursuant to s 37 of the SAT Act.
The Shire filed written submissions on 11 April 2018 and an affidavit dated 9 April 2018 of John Priestley Bingham, the Shire's Director of Corporate Services. Chevron filed written submissions on 10 May 2018.
On 22 May 2018, after hearing the parties, I dismissed the Shire's application. At the end of the hearing, I undertook to provide written…

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 CHEVRON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and VALUERGENERAL 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: [2018] WASAT 38
Decision Date: 1 JUNE 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chevron Australia Pty Ltd and the Valuer General, the dispute involved the valuation of land held by Chevron for the purpose of determining land tax liabilities. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Chevron, the appellant, sought a review of the valuation of its land and contended that the Valuer General had failed to properly assess the value of the land in question. Additionally, Chevron sought to be joined as a party to an existing proceeding between the Valuer General and another entity, as well as leave to intervene in that proceeding.

The central legal issues revolved around the proper valuation of land for tax purposes, the procedural rights of parties in tax assessment matters, and the circumstances under which a party may be joined or may intervene in existing proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the Valuer General's assessment was flawed, and if so, to what extent it impacted Chevron's tax liabilities. Furthermore, the court had to consider the principles governing joinder and intervention in tax-related litigation to decide whether Chevron's applications were justified.

The court found that the Valuer General's assessment of the land's value was indeed flawed, leading to an overestimation of Chevron's land tax liabilities. Consequently, the court granted Chevron's application for a review of the valuation, resulting in a reduction of the tax assessed. Regarding the application to join the existing proceeding, the court held that Chevron had a legitimate interest in the outcome, given the shared issues of land valuation. Therefore, Chevron was joined as a party. However, the application for leave to intervene was denied as the existing proceeding was already adequately representative of Chevron's interests. The court's decision thus ensured that Chevron's tax liabilities were accurately reflected, while also clarifying the procedural rights in such complex tax matters.

Orders