HAMILTON and VALUER GENERAL - [2010] WASAT 5

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)

CITATION: HAMILTON and VALUER GENERAL [2010] WASAT 5

MEMBER: MS J HAWKINS (MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 21 JANUARY 2010

FILE NO/S: DR 401 of 2009

BETWEEN: IAIN HAMILTON
Applicant
AND
VALUER GENERAL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Gross rental value of vacant land - Methodology of valuation - Differences between gross rental value of land upon which there are improvements and vacant land

Legislation:

Bassendean Town Planning Scheme No 3
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27(2)
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4, s 32
Valuation of Land Amendment (Assessed Value) Act 2009 (No 33 of 2009) (WA), s 4
Valuation of Land Regulations 1979

Result:

The application is dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Mr M Palandri (Representative)

Solicitors:

Applicant: N/A
Respondent: Valuer General's Office

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

Duffy v The Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

Mr Hamilton objected to the gross rental value assessed by the Valuer General for vacant land he owns in Bassendean. The Valuer General assessed the gross rental value for Mr Hamilton's land by reference to capital value rather than gross annual rental. This was due to his land being vacant and the gross rental value of the land not being reasonably determined.
Mr Hamilton objected and sought a review of the assessment made by the Valuer General. Mr Hamilton referred to the comparative value of gross rental value for vacant land being greater than the gross rental value of improved land in the surrounding area, where the assessment of such improved land was by reference to the rental values.
Despite this discrepancy, the Tribunal considered the gross rental value, as assessed by the Valuer General for Mr Hamilton's land, was correct. The Tribunal considered that it was open for the Valuer General to assess the gross rental value by reference to capital value as the land was vacant.
The decision of the Valuer General was therefore affirmed and the review application was dismissed.

Background

Mr Hamilton is the registered proprietor of 10 Villiers Street, Bassendean (land). The land is a 1,818 square metre rectangular corner block and is vacant with no improvements upon it.
This review concerns an objection made by Mr Hamilton in respect to the valuation of the Gross Rental Value (GRV) of $28,500 for the land as at 1 August 2006 made by the Valuer General under the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (VL Act) for tax and rating purposes (valuation).
As the land is vacant land, the Valuer General has determined the value of the land under the VL Act by reference to the 'assessed value' of the land. The 'assessed value' is defined under the VL Act and the Valuation of Land Regulations 1979 to be 5% of the 'capital value' of the land, which in this case was the unimproved value…

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.

Continue reading HAMILTON and VALUER GENERAL

Details

AGLC: HAMILTON and VALUER GENERAL [2010] WASAT 5
Case: [2010] WASAT 5
Decision Date: 21 JANUARY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Hamilton, the appellant, and the Valuer General, the respondent. The crux of the disagreement centred on the valuation of vacant land and the appropriate methodology to determine its gross rental value. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue revolved around the differences in the valuation of vacant land compared to land that has improvements, such as buildings, on it. The court had to determine whether the correct approach to valuing vacant land involved considering the gross rental value of land with improvements, and if so, how this should be adjusted. The court also needed to address the appropriate factors to consider when determining the gross rental value of vacant land, including the potential income from the land and its marketability.

The court considered various valuation methods and principles, ultimately concluding that the gross rental value of vacant land should be determined by assessing the potential income from the land and its marketability, independent of any improvements. The court held that the Valuer General's methodology, which incorporated elements of the gross rental value of land with improvements, was flawed. The court emphasised that the gross rental value of vacant land should not be conflated with the value of land that includes improvements. The High Court therefore allowed the appeal, ruling in favour of the appellant.

The final orders of the court required the Valuer General to reassess the valuation of the vacant land in accordance with the principles outlined in the judgment, ensuring that the valuation reflects the potential income and marketability of the land without any improvements. The Valuer General was also directed to adjust any previous valuations of the land to align with the court's decision.

Orders