Deflector Gold Pty Ltd v Valuer General - [2024] WASC 252

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   DEFLECTOR GOLD PTY LTD -v- VALUER GENERAL [2024] WASC 252
CORAM:   LEMONIS J
HEARD:   7 FEBRUARY 2024
DELIVERED          :   18 JULY 2024
FILE NO/S:   GDA 6 of 2023
BETWEEN:   DEFLECTOR GOLD PTY LTD
First Appellant
GULLEWA GOLD PROJECT PTY LTD
Second Appellant
AND
VALUER GENERAL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Coram:   MEMBER ROSETTA PETRUCCI
File Number            :   DR 125/2022

Catchwords:

Valuation of land - Interim valuation conducted after the date of the last general valuation - Whether interim valuation should be conducted as at the date of the last general valuation and on the assumption that improvements added after the last general valuation were in situ as new at that point in time

Legislation:

Acts Amendment (Annual Valuations and Land Tax) Act 1993 (WA)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)
Local Government Act 1995 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA)
Valuation of Land Regulations 1979 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant	:	T C Russell
Second Appellant	:	T C Russell
Respondent	:	C A Ide

Solicitors:

First Appellant	:	Cassandra Lendich
Second Appellant	:	Cassandra Lendich
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Barber v Valuer General (1969) 17 LGRA 409
Beiler v The Valuer General (1980) 23 SASR 385
Commissioner for Consumer Protection v Carey [2014] WASCA 7
Conservation Council of WA Inc v The Hon Stephen Dawson MLC, Minister for Environment; Disability Services [2019] WASCA 102
McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223
Prichard v M 6:8 Legal Pty Ltd [2024] WASCA 4
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355

LEMONIS J:

This appeal concerns the proper construction of the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) (the Act).
Broadly speaking, valuations conducted under the Act are used by Shires in Western Australia for the purposes of determining the rates payable in respect of land within the relevant shire.
Each appellant (Deflector and Gullewa) is a subsidiary of Silver Lake Resources Limited and is the registered holder of a mining lease in the Shire of Yalgoo (the Shire). Both mining leases have improvements on them. These improvements were added at various times from 2016 to 2019.
Up until 30 June 2020, each mining lease was valued for rating purposes as one parcel of land comprised by the respective mining lease. However, from 1 July 2020 onwards, each mining lease has been valued for rating purposes by reference to two separate parts of the respective mining lease. The first part comprises the area on which the improvements are situated. The second part comprises the balance of the mining lease. The valuation methodology used for the part on which the improvements are situated was the 'gross rental value' method prescribed by the Act. The…

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 Deflector Gold Pty Ltd v 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: [2024] WASC 252
Decision Date: 18 JULY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Deflector Gold Pty Ltd v Valuer General, Deflector Gold challenged the valuation of its land by the Valuer General. The dispute arose from the method used to conduct the interim valuation, specifically whether it should reflect the land's value as if improvements added post the last general valuation were present at that time. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the correct approach to interim valuations following a general valuation, particularly whether the interim valuation should be conducted on the assumption that improvements added after the last general valuation were in situ as new at the time of the last general valuation. This involved interpreting statutory provisions and understanding the intent behind the legislative framework governing land valuations.

The court found that the interim valuation should indeed reflect the land's value as if the improvements were present at the time of the last general valuation. This was based on the statutory requirement that interim valuations should be conducted in a manner consistent with the last general valuation. The court emphasised that the legislative intent was to maintain consistency in the valuation process and to ensure that interim valuations do not significantly deviate from the last general valuation. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory framework to avoid discrepancies in land valuations.

The court ordered that the Valuer General should revise the interim valuation in accordance with the principles set out in the judgment. This ruling clarified the methodology for interim valuations and provided guidance for future valuations, ensuring consistency and fairness in the valuation process.

Orders