Ninan and Anor and Valuer General - [2012] WASAT 248 (S)

JURISDICTION	:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
STREAM	:	DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES
ACT	:	VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)
CITATION	:	NINAN & ANOR and VALUER GENERAL [2012] WASAT 248 (S)
MEMBER	:	MR P McNAB (SENIOR MEMBER)
HEARD	:	DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED	:	20 MARCH 2013
PUBLISHED	:	24 MAY 2013
FILE NO/S	:	DR 162 of 2011
BETWEEN	:	GEORGE NINAN & ANOR Applicants
AND
VALUER GENERAL Respondent
Catchwords:

Costs - Valuation of land - Unimproved value - Gross rental value - Baseless claims raised in the review - Unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy, fraud, forgery, corruption and misconduct by respondent, and other agencies and private organisations - Claims for damages - No jurisdiction in Tribunal to consider such claims - Applicants placed on notice not to pursue such claims - Applicants warned of possible costs implications - Applicants filing confusing, repetitive, overlong submissions comprised of mainly irrelevant material - Tribunal finding reviews misconceived and an abuse of process - Applications dismissed - Decisions under review affirmed - Tribunal inviting costs applications by respondent and Executive Officer of Tribunal - Executive Officer declining to make application - Respondent seeking partial indemnity for costs unnecessarily incurred in the sum of $55,000 - Need for restraint in the award of costs - Tribunal finding 'exceptional' case warranting costs order in respondent's favour - Tribunal awarded respondent $55,000 in costs	[2012] WASAT 248 (S)
Legislation:
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA)
Result:
Costs order made in favour of the respondent
Summary of Tribunal's decision:

Following the delivery of reasons in Ninan & Anor and Valuer General [2012] WASAT 248, the respondent Valuer General sought, by his solicitors, an award of $55,000 as a partial indemnity to cover the significant legal expenses of responding to the applicants' serious but completely unfounded claims. Moreover, the respondent noted that the Tribunal had ruled that the applicants' claims were, in any case, outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In fact, the actual cost to the State in defending itself and its officers against the applicants' unsubstantiated claims amounted to a considerable sum.

The applicants did not dispute the amounts claimed, the calculation of the amounts claimed or the basis of the respondent's costs claims. Nor did they seek to challenge any of the costs principles discussed in the Tribunal's principal reasons.
Instead, the applicants sought to reargue and to further explain aspects of their case which had already been dismissed. The Tribunal, in effect, declined to permit the applicants to take that course.
The applicants also alleged that they were impecunious; that the use of lawyers was unnecessary; that the Tribunal had encouraged the respondent in this course; and that the Tribunal had not sufficiently warned the applicants of the consequences of the path that they were taking.

The Tribunal analysed and rejected each of these claims. The applicants held substantial assets in the State. They had provided no evidence of their financial position in relation to these assets. The applicants could not be said…

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 Ninan and Anor 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

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: [2012] WASAT 248 (S)
Decision Date: 24 MAY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ninan and Anor and Valuer General involved a dispute concerning the valuation of land in Western Australia. The applicants challenged the valuation of their land, specifically arguing that the unimproved value and gross rental value assessments were flawed. They also made a series of baseless claims against the Valuer General, including allegations of conspiracy, fraud, forgery, corruption and misconduct, which were found to be unsubstantiated. The applicants further sought damages for the alleged misconduct, but the Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to consider such claims. The Tribunal warned the applicants against pursuing these baseless claims and noted that their submissions were confusing, repetitive, overlong, and comprised mainly of irrelevant material.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants' claims had any merit and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the baseless allegations and claims for damages. The applicants argued that the valuation of their land was incorrect and sought to rely on the unsubstantiated claims to support their position. The Tribunal held that the applicants' claims were misconceived and an abuse of process, and the review was dismissed. The Tribunal also found that the applicants' submissions were poorly prepared and contained irrelevant material, which contributed to the costs incurred in the proceedings.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal emphasised the need for restraint in awarding costs, given that the applicants had made baseless claims and filed poorly prepared submissions. However, the Tribunal found that the circumstances of this case were exceptional, warranting a costs order in favour of the Valuer General. The Tribunal awarded the Valuer General $55,000 in costs, recognising the significant resources that were unnecessarily expended in responding to the baseless claims and poorly prepared submissions. The Executive Officer of the Tribunal declined to make a costs application on behalf of the Tribunal, and the Valuer General sought partial indemnity for the costs incurred.

The final orders of the Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review and dismissed the applicants' review applications. The Tribunal also awarded the Valuer General $55,000 in costs, acknowledging the exceptional circumstances of the case and the need for restraint in the award of costs.

Orders