Ninan and ANOR and Valuer General

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.