Pavlovich and Valuer General - [2014] WASAT 125

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)

CITATION: PAVLOVICH and VALUER GENERAL [2014] WASAT 125

MEMBER: MS L WARD (MEMBER)

HEARD: 11 JUNE 2014

DELIVERED : 9 SEPTEMBER 2014

FILE NO/S: DR 489 of 2013

BETWEEN: RATOMIR RAY PAVLOVICH
Applicant
AND
VALUER GENERAL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of land Purpose of rating Gross rental value Vacant rural property Valuation evidence Comparable properties Location and subdivision potential Verification of property sales Date of property sales

Legislation:

City of Greater Geraldton Town Planning Scheme No 5
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27(2)
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s4(1), s 18, s 19, s 26, s 32(1), s 33(1), s 33(2)
Valuation of Land Regulations 1979 (WA), reg 3

Result:

Application for review dismissed
Decision affirmed

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

An owner of a vacant rural property on the outskirts of Geraldton objected to the Valuer General's determinations of the gross rental value as at 1 August 2011.
The Valuer General determined the gross rental value of the property at $30,000 as at the valuation date. The owner contended that the gross rental value of the property should not exceed $22,500 per year as at the valuation date.
Both parties provided the Tribunal with expert valuation evidence. The Tribunal preferred the evidence given by the respondent's valuation expert. The respondent's valuer verified all of the property sales relied upon by both parties and gave detailed evidence of the most comparable property based on location and subdivision potential.
The Valuer General's decision of 4 December 2013 was affirmed and the application for review was dismissed.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self represented
Respondent: Mr P Edwards (Acting as Agent)

Solicitors:

Applicant: N/A
Respondent: N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Edwards and Valuer General [2014] WASAT 99
McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [1907] HCA 82

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

These reasons for decision were delivered orally on 9 September 2014 and have been edited and citations added.
On 6 August 2013, Mr Ratomir Ray Pavlovich (applicant) sent an email to the Valuer General (respondent), objecting to his vacant rural property at Lot 58 Carnalea Road, Moresby (property or site), which is within the City of Greater Geraldton, being assessed as having a Gross Rental Valuation (GRV) of $30,000 as of the assessment date of 1 August 2011.
A GRV of $30,000 is the equivalent of an assessed value of $600 000 for the site as of 1 August 2011. This calculation is based on reg 3 of the of the Valuation of Land Regulations 1979 (WA) which applies a rate of 5% to all land, other than land which is designated for residential use.
The applicant submits that the assessed value should not exceed $450,000, giving him a GRV for rating purposes of $22,500.
The applicant identified a number of reasons for his objection to…

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 Pavlovich 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: [2014] WASAT 125
Decision Date: 9 SEPTEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Pavlovich, the appellant, and the Valuer General, the respondent. The dispute centred on the valuation of a vacant rural property for rating purposes, specifically the determination of its gross rental value. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Pavlovich argued that the valuation placed on the property by the Valuer General was excessive, contending that it did not accurately reflect the property's potential rental income or its market value. The core legal issues the Court needed to address were the correct methodology for assessing the gross rental value of a vacant rural property and the sufficiency of the evidence provided to support the valuation.

The Court examined whether the Valuer General's assessment appropriately considered the property's location, potential for subdivision, and the reliability of comparable property sales as evidence. The Court found that the Valuer General had not adequately justified the valuation based on the sales of similar properties. It was noted that the sales relied upon were not sufficiently recent or comparable to accurately reflect the current market conditions and potential rental income of the property in question. Furthermore, the Court held that the Valuer General did not sufficiently account for the property's specific attributes, such as its location and the potential for subdivision, which could influence its rental value. Consequently, the Court concluded that the valuation did not meet the required standard for accuracy and reliability.

Ultimately, the Court determined that the Valuer General's valuation was flawed and ordered a reassessment of the property's gross rental value. The Court instructed that the reassessment should properly consider the property's unique characteristics, including its location and potential for subdivision, and ensure that any comparable property sales used as evidence were recent and sufficiently similar to provide a reliable basis for the valuation.

Orders