NINAN and VALUER GENERAL [2014] WASAT 93

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2014] WASAT 93
Act:	VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)
Case No:	DR:438/2013	Heard:	DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
Coram:	MR S ELLIS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)	Delivered:	30/07/14
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applications dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GEORGE NINAN MOLLY GEORGE VALUER GENERAL
Catchwords:	Valuation of land Unimproved value Turns on own facts
Legislation:	State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 84 Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4, s 18, s 24, s 32, s 32(2), s 33
Case References:	Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] HCA 8; (2003) 212 CLR 111 Western Australian Planning Commission v Arcus Shop Fitters Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 295
Orders	On the application determined on the documents by Senior Sessional Member Scott Ellis, it is on 30 July 2014 ordered that: ,1. Each of applications DR 438 of 2013, DR 439 of 2013 and DR 440 of 2013 be dismissed.,2. The respondent has liberty to apply for an order for costs within 21 days.
Summary	The applicants sought review, pursuant to s 33 of the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), of valuations made by the respondent of three properties owned by the applicants in the Dawesville area. The respondent provided expert valuation evidence supporting its valuations. The applicants did not. The respondent's valuation evidence was in accordance with accepted valuation methodologies and was based on sound selection of comparable properties. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent and concluded that the valuations of Lot 276 at $540,000, Lot 227 at $370,000 and Lot 11 at $620,000 as at 1 August 2011 were correct. The applications were dismissed.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA) CITATION : NINAN and VALUER GENERAL [2014] WASAT 93 MEMBER : MR S ELLIS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 30 JULY 2014 FILE NO/S : DR 438 of 2013

DR 439 of 2013

DR 440 of 2013

BETWEEN : GEORGE NINAN

MOLLY GEORGE

Applicants

AND

VALUER GENERAL

Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of land Unimproved value Turns on own facts

Legislation:

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 84

Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4, s 18, s 24, s 32, s 32(2), s 33

Result:

Applications dismissed

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

The applicants sought review, pursuant to s 33 of the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), of valuations made by the respondent of three properties owned by the applicants in the Dawesville area. The respondent provided expert valuation evidence supporting its valuations. The applicants did not. The respondent's valuation evidence was in accordance with accepted valuation methodologies and was based on sound selection of comparable properties. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent and concluded that the valuations of Lot 276 at $540,000, Lot 227 at $370,000 and Lot 11 at $620,000 as at…

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 NINAN and VALUER GENERAL

Details

AGLC: Ninan and Valuer General [2014] WASAT 93
Case: [2014] WASAT 93
Decision Date: 30 JULY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between NINAM and the Valuer General involved a dispute over the valuation of a particular property. The applicant sought to challenge the valuation of the land, arguing that the valuer had not appropriately assessed the unimproved value of the land. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues at the heart of the case revolved around the determination of the appropriate method for assessing the unimproved value of land and the extent to which the valuer had acted within their statutory powers when making the valuation.

In considering these issues, the Court held that the assessment of the unimproved value of land was inherently fact-specific and that the valuer had appropriately exercised their discretion in making the valuation. The Court found that the valuer had considered all relevant factors and had reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence available. The Court also noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to suggest that the valuer had acted outside of their statutory powers or had made an error in their assessment. As a result, the Court dismissed the applicant's challenge to the valuation of the land.

The Court's decision in this case highlights the importance of considering the unique facts and circumstances of each case when assessing the unimproved value of land. The Court also emphasised the importance of the valuer's role in making these assessments and the need for valuers to exercise their discretion appropriately in reaching a conclusion. The Court's decision in this case provides valuable guidance for valuers and landowners alike when it comes to the assessment of unimproved land values.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications dismissed

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.