Ninan and ANOR and Valuer General - [2012] WASAT 248

NINAN & ANOR and VALUER GENERAL [2012] WASAT 248

Last Update: 02/01/2013

NINAN & ANOR and VALUER GENERAL [2012] WASAT 248
Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2012] WASAT 248
Act:	VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)
Case No:	DR:162/2011	Heard:	DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
Coram:	MR P McNAB (SENIOR MEMBER)	Delivered:	28/12/2012
No of Pages:	28	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applications for review dismissed Valuation decisions and decisions not to extend the time limited for objecting affirmed
Category:	B
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	GEORGE NINAN & ANOR VALUER GENERAL
Catchwords:	Valuation of land Unimproved value Gross rental value Challenges to 43 valuations on four separate lots Respondent refusing to extend time limit for objections in some cases Only one valuation challenged by expert valuation evidence Applicants resident overseas Reviews determined together on the documents 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 costs implications Applicants filing confusing, repetitive, overlong submissions comprised of mainly irrelevant material Respondent filing expert valuation material in all relevant matters Reconsideration invited in sole matter where expert valuation in rebuttal lodged by applicants New valuation tending to support official valuation Tribunal finding reviews misconceived and an abuse of process Tribunal refusing to extend time as proposed reviews futile Applications dismissed Decisions under review affirmed Tribunal inviting costs applications by respondent and Executive Officer of Tribunal
Legislation:	State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 46, s 47, s 48, s 88, Div 5 Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 32, s 32(1), s 32(6), s 33, s 35
Case References:	Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd [2002] FCAFC 331 Butler v Crowley & Greenhalgh (Solicitors) [1999] QSC 339; SC No 6521 of 1996, 11 November 1999 Gallo v Dawson (1992) [1992] HCA 44; 66 ALJR 859 Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30; 64 ALJR 458 Gawor and the Owners of Dawesville Caravan Park Old Coast Road Mandurah, Strata Plan No 14644 [2009] WASAT 170 McCauley v McInness [2008] ACTRTT 11 Medical Board of Western Australia and Kyi [2009] WASAT 22 Robertson and Valuer General [2007] WASAT 213 Tonkin and Valuer General [2010] WASAT 21 Tran and Town of Vincent [2009] WASAT 123 Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263
Orders:	On the application determined on the documents by Senior Member Peter McNab, it is on 28 December 2012 ordered that: 1. Subject to any order as to costs, the applications for review are dismissed. 2. The decisions under review (including any review of a decision not to extend the time for service of an objection) are affirmed. 3. For the avoidance of doubt, these orders have concurrent application to each and…

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
Decision Date: 28 DECEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Ninan and ANOR, sought a review of the valuations of four separate lots of land, challenging the gross rental value assessments provided by the respondent, the Valuer General. The case was heard by the Valuation Review Board, an administrative tribunal in Australia. The applicants, who resided overseas, contested the valuations on various grounds, including unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy, fraud, forgery, corruption, and misconduct. They also sought damages against the respondent and other agencies and private organisations, which the tribunal found to be beyond its jurisdiction.

The legal issues before the tribunal included whether the applicants' challenges to the valuations were valid and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the unsubstantiated allegations and claims for damages. The tribunal had to determine if the applicants' claims were misconceived and an abuse of process, and if the proposed reviews were futile. Additionally, the tribunal had to decide whether to extend the time limit for objecting to the valuations in some cases, as requested by the applicants.

The tribunal found that the applicants' challenges to the valuations were misconceived and an abuse of process. It held that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the unsubstantiated allegations and claims for damages, and warned the applicants of the costs implications of pursuing such claims. The tribunal also found that the applicants' submissions were confusing, repetitive, overlong, and comprised mainly of irrelevant material. The tribunal dismissed the applications for review, affirmed the valuation decisions and decisions not to extend the time limit for objecting, and invited the respondent and the Executive Officer of the tribunal to apply for costs.

In summary, the tribunal dismissed the applicants' challenges to the valuations, finding their claims misconceived and an abuse of process. It affirmed the valuation decisions and decisions not to extend the time limit for objecting. The tribunal warned the applicants against pursuing unsubstantiated allegations and claims for damages and invited the respondent and the Executive Officer of the tribunal to apply for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications for review dismissed

Valuation decisions and decisions not to extend the time limited for objecting 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.