PAVLOVICH -v- VALUER-GENERAL [2015] WASC 333

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 333
Case No:	GDA:10/2014	Heard:	1 SEPTEMBER 2015
Coram:	TOTTLE J	Delivered:	1/09/15
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RATOMIR RAY PAVLOVICH VALUER-GENERAL
Catchwords:	Valuation of land Appeal from the State Administrative Tribunal Leave to appeal Question of law Whether in the interests of justice for leave to be granted
Legislation:	State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 105
Case References:	Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd v SC Projects Australia Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 60 Lourey v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2012] WASCA 112 McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223 Paradis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361 Pavlovich and Valuer-General [2014] WASAT 125

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : PAVLOVICH -v- VALUER-GENERAL [2015] WASC 333 CORAM : TOTTLE J HEARD : 1 SEPTEMBER 2015 DELIVERED : 1 SEPTEMBER 2015 FILE NO/S : GDA 10 of 2014 BETWEEN : RATOMIR RAY PAVLOVICH

Applicant

AND

VALUER-GENERAL

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MS L WARD (MEMBER)

Citation : PAVLOVICH and VALUER GENERAL [2014] WASAT 125

File No : DR 489 of 2013

Catchwords:

Valuation of land - Appeal from the State Administrative Tribunal - Leave to appeal - Question of law - Whether in the interests of justice for leave to be granted

Legislation:

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 105

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Ms C Ide

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd v SC Projects Australia Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 60
Lourey v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2012] WASCA 112
McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223
Paradis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361
Pavlovich and Valuer-General [2014] WASAT 125

TOTTLE J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 1 September 2015 and has been edited from the transcript).

1 The applicant applies for leave to appeal from a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) made on 9 September 2014; see Pavlovich and Valuer-General [2014] WASAT 125. Leave to appeal is required pursuant to s 105(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act2004 (WA). By its decision, the Tribunal affirmed the respondent's disallowance of the applicant's objection to the valuation of lot 58, Carnalea Road, Moresby, Geraldton (the Property), of which the applicant was a part owner.

2 The applicant represented himself before the Tribunal and has conducted the application for leave to appeal on his own behalf and without the assistance of legal representation. The applicant has filed and served an affidavit sworn on 3 November 2014 which attached various items of correspondence. These…

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 v 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: [2015] WASC 333
Decision Date: 1 SEPTEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pavlovich v Valuer-General, the appellant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Valuer-General in relation to the valuation of certain land. The dispute originated in the State Administrative Tribunal, where the appellant challenged the valuation, claiming it was incorrect. The Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction was tasked with determining whether the appellant should be granted leave to appeal the tribunal's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the appellant leave to appeal the tribunal's decision. The appellant argued that the tribunal had erred in its assessment of the evidence and that the valuation was substantially incorrect. The Valuer-General contended that the tribunal's decision was sound and that allowing an appeal would not serve the interests of justice.

The court considered the nature of the errors alleged and the potential impact of those errors on the outcome. It noted that the appellant had raised significant issues regarding the valuation process and the evidence considered by the tribunal. The court concluded that the questions of law involved were of sufficient importance to warrant an appeal and that it was in the interests of justice to grant leave. Consequently, the court decided to grant the appellant leave to appeal the tribunal's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

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.