Mobil Oil Australia Ltd (Respondent 1) v the Valuer-General (Respondent 2) and the Corporation of the City of Port Adelaide No. SCGRG 91/1691 Judgment No. 3908 Number of Pages 11 Local Government (1993) 80 Lgera - [1993] SASC 3908

COURT IN THE FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA KING CJ(1), OLSSON(2) AND PERRY(1) JJ

CWDS
Local government - valuation of land - objections and appeals - no right of objection in Council under s. 24 Valuation of Land Act - valuation made in response to Council's invalid objection ineffectual as correction of valuation adopted by Council for year ended 30th June 1991 - amended rate notices for that year based upon such valuation made after adoption of estimates by Council, invalid - such valuation nevertheless a valuation attracting operation of s.171(3) of Local Government Act and therefore forming valid basis of rate assessments for year ended 30th June 1992 - application of s.184(7) to circumstances.

HRNG ADELAIDE, 4 March 1993 #DATE 29:4:93
Counsel for appellant:             Mr B R M Hayes QC with
   Mr M J Roder
Solicitors for appellant:         Norman Waterhouse
Counsel for respondent Mobil:     Mr D J Bleby QC with
   Mr M J Liebich
Solicitors for respondent:         Thomson Simmons and Co
Counsel for respondent:            Mr D J Bleby QC with Valuer-General: Mr M J Liebich
Solicitors for respondent:         Crown Solicitor Valuer-General

ORDER
Appeal allowed.

JUDGE1 KING CJ This is an appeal against a decision of Justice Matheson in an action for judicial review whereby he made declarations of invalidity in relation to certain rate assessments of the defendant Council. 2. The facts and relevant statutory provisions are set out in the judgment of Olsson J. 3. I agree for the reasons given by Matheson J for the judgment appealed from and by Olsson J on this appeal that the purported appeal by the Council against the Valuer-General's valuations of the plaintiff's land was invalid because the Valuation of Land Act confers no right of objection upon a Council. 4. It follows that the purported correction of the valuation adopted by the Council for the year ended 30th June 1991 has no legal foundation. 5. The position is rather more complex with respect to the year ended 30th June 1992. The valuation made in consequence of the invalid appeal, increasing the values of the two parcels of land to $250,000 and $3,200,000 respectively, was notified to the Council on 15th May 1991. The amended values were not included on the Valuation Roll immediately. Consequently when the Council adopted the Valuer-General's valuations on 3rd June 1991 for the year ended 30th June 1992, the values shown on the Valuation Roll were $250,000 and $2,000,000 respectively. The Valuation Roll which contained these values was expressly referred to in the Notice in the Gazette notifying the adoption by the Council of the Valuer-General's valuation. That, however, does not conclude the question whether the 1991-2 assessment of the freehold land should not have been based upon the value of $3.2 million instead of the value of $2 million. 6. When a Council adopts the valuations of the Valuer-General, what governs the assessment, according to s.171(3) of the Local Government Act, is not the value appearing on…

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 Mobil Oil Australia Ltd (Respondent 1) v the Valuer-General...

Details

AGLC: Mobil Oil Australia Ltd (Respondent 1) v the Valuer-General (Respondent 2) and the Corporation of the City of Port Adelaide No. SCGRG 91/1691 Judgment No. 3908 Number of Pages 11 Local Government (1993) 80 Lgera [1993] SASC 3908
Case: [1993] SASC 3908
Decision Date: 29 April 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mobil Oil Australia Ltd, as the registered proprietor of certain real estate, was the subject of rate assessments issued by the Corporation of the City of Port Adelaide for the financial years ended 30 June 1991 and 30 June 1992. Mobil contested the validity of these assessments, leading to a judicial review application. The primary issue before the court was whether the Corporation, as a local council, had the legal standing to object to the valuations of land under the Valuation of Land Act. Additionally, the court had to determine the validity of the rate assessments for the respective financial years, considering the council's actions and the Valuer-General's responses.

The court found that the Corporation did not have the right to object to land valuations under the Valuation of Land Act, as this right is reserved for individuals dissatisfied with the valuation. Consequently, the council's purported objections and the Valuer-General's subsequent valuations in response to these objections were deemed invalid. However, the court held that the valuation made by the Valuer-General on 15 March 1991, which was not in response to an objection, was a valid valuation under the Act. This valuation was available to the council when it adopted its estimates of income and expenditure for the year ended 30 June 1992, and thus governed the assessment of rates for that year.

The court concluded that the rate assessments for the year ended 30 June 1991 were invalid due to the council's lack of standing to object to the valuations. However, the rate assessments for the year ended 30 June 1992 were valid, as they were based on the most recent valuations available to the council at the time of adopting the estimates of income and expenditure. The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the declarations and orders that invalidated the increased assessment for the year ended 30 June 1992, while affirming those that invalidated the increased assessment for the year ended 30 June 1991.

Orders