EDWARDS and VALUER GENERAL [2014] WASAT 99
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2014] WASAT 99 | |
| VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | DR:365/2013 | DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS | |
| Coram: | MS N OWEN-CONWAY (MEMBER) | 15/08/14 | |
| 36 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Decision affirmed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MITCH EDWARDS VALUER GENERAL |
Catchwords: | Unimproved value Land tax Metropolitan Region Improvement tax Date of valuation Comparable sales evidence Market value Post valuation sales Valuation principles applicable to determination of market value of unimproved land |
Legislation: | City of Canning Town Planning Scheme No 40 Land Tax Assessment Act 2012 (WA), s 5, s 7, s 7(1), s 10, s 17 Metropolitan Region Improvement Tax Act 1959 (WA), s 9, s 10 Metropolitan Region Scheme Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA), s 33 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 17(1), s 27(1), s 29(1), s 29(3), s 32, s 32(2), s 33, s 33(2) Valuation of Land Act 12978 (WA), s 18, s 19 |
Case References: | Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2007] WASCA 226 Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Limited [1999] HCA 64; (1999) 74 ALJR 209 Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 64 Duffy v Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294 Duffy v The Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294 Housing Commission of New South Wales v Falconer [1981] 1 NSWLR 547 Kenny & Good Pty Ltd v MGICA (1992) Ltd [1999] HCA 25; (1999) 199 CLR 413 Leichhardt Municipal Council v Seatainer Terminals Pty Ltd (1981) 48 LGRA 409 Longworth v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (1953) 53 SR (NSW) 342 Maidment v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW [2006] NSWLEC 606 McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [2013] WASCA 135 McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] (2011) WASC 223 Minister Administering The Crown Lands Act v New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council [2009] NSWCA 151 Minister for the Environment v Florence (1970) 21 SASR 108 Mir v Valuer General [2009] NSWLEC 1309 Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission (No 3) [2008] WASCA 158 Multari v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2004] NSWLEC 649 Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [1907] HCA 82; (1907) 5 CLR 418 The Match Group v Metropolitan South West Joint Development Assessment Panel [2014] WASCA 50 The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs v Charlesworth, Pilling & Co [1901] AC 373 Walker Corporation Pty Ltd v Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority [2008] HCA 5; (2008) 233 CLR 259 Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (in liq) v Darling Harbour Authority (1991) 24 NSWLR 156 |
Orders | On the application heard before Member Natasha Owen-Conway on 14 August 2014, it is ordered that:,1. Upon review, the Tribunal affirms the respondent's decisions:,(a) to disallow the applicant's objection to the respondent's determination of unimproved value of the applicant's property as at 1 August 2010 and 1 August 2011 of $375,000; and,(b)… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read EDWARDS 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2014] WASAT 99
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved Edwards, the appellant, and the Valuer General, the respondent, in a dispute regarding the assessment of land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax in Western Australia. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which was required to determine whether the Valuer General's assessment of the unimproved value of certain land for the purposes of land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax was correct. The central issue before the court was whether the Valuer General had correctly applied the valuation principles in determining the market value of the unimproved land.
The court examined whether the Valuer General appropriately considered the evidence of comparable sales in the vicinity of the land in question, as well as whether the Valuer General had correctly applied the principles of valuation in determining the market value of the unimproved land. The court also considered whether the Valuer General should have taken into account the sale of the land after the date of valuation in determining the unimproved value of the land. Ultimately, the court held that the Valuer General had correctly applied the relevant valuation principles and had not erred in determining the unimproved value of the land for the purposes of land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax.
In reaching its decision, the court found that the Valuer General had appropriately considered the evidence of comparable sales in the vicinity of the land and had not erred in determining the market value of the unimproved land. The court further found that the Valuer General was not required to take into account the sale of the land after the date of valuation in determining the unimproved value of the land. The court also held that the Valuer General had not erred in determining the date of valuation for the purposes of the land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the Valuer General, and the appeal was dismissed.
The court examined whether the Valuer General appropriately considered the evidence of comparable sales in the vicinity of the land in question, as well as whether the Valuer General had correctly applied the principles of valuation in determining the market value of the unimproved land. The court also considered whether the Valuer General should have taken into account the sale of the land after the date of valuation in determining the unimproved value of the land. Ultimately, the court held that the Valuer General had correctly applied the relevant valuation principles and had not erred in determining the unimproved value of the land for the purposes of land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax.
In reaching its decision, the court found that the Valuer General had appropriately considered the evidence of comparable sales in the vicinity of the land and had not erred in determining the market value of the unimproved land. The court further found that the Valuer General was not required to take into account the sale of the land after the date of valuation in determining the unimproved value of the land. The court also held that the Valuer General had not erred in determining the date of valuation for the purposes of the land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the Valuer General, and the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Decision affirmed
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.