PULICH and VALUER-GENERAL - [2021] WASAT 62

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)
CITATION:   PULICH and VALUER-GENERAL [2021] WASAT 62
MEMBER:   MS KY LOH, MEMBER
HEARD:   11 FEBRUARY 2021
DELIVERED          :   6 MAY 2021
FILE NO/S:   DR 171 of 2020
BETWEEN:   ALDO PULICH
First Applicant
NILAR PULICH
Second Applicant
AND
VALUER-GENERAL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of land - 'Unimproved value' - Highest and best use - Whether any value to be attributed to existing improvement on property with potential for further subdivision and development

Legislation:

City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24
State Planning Policy 7.3 - Residential Design Codes, Volume 1
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 17, s 27(1), s 27(2), s 27(3)
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4(1), s 18, s 32(1), s 32(3), s 32(9), s 33(1), s 33(2)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Applicant	:	In Person
Second Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Mr D Dumas (as representative)

Solicitors:

First Applicant	:	N/A
Second Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

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

Arcus Shopfitters Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2002] WASC 174; (2002) 125 LGERA 180
Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (No 2) (1973) 6 SASR 541
Commonwealth Custodial Services Ltd v Valuer-General (NSW) [2006] NSWLEC 400; (2006) 148 LGERA 38
Housing Commission of New South Wales v Falconer [1981] 1 NSWLR 547
Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] HCA 8; (2003) 212 CLR 111
McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223
Melwood Units Pty Ltd v The Commissioner of Main Roads [1979] AC 426
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

The owners of two properties in Maylands, Mr and Mrs Pulich, contest the decision of the Valuer-General on 18 June 2020 to disallow their objection to the valuation of the unimproved value of their properties.
The subject properties have the same lot dimensions and size, and were each valued, on an unimproved basis, at $600,000 as at 1 August 2018.
The Valuer-General relies on the comparable sales method of valuation, and has assessed the highest and best use of the subject properties as having the development potential for three-lot grouped dwellings.
The owners did not call their own expert valuer, and have instead sought to challenge the expert opinion of the qualified licensed valuer called by the Valuer-General, Ms Emily Wenman.
For reasons set out below, I am satisfied that there is a reasoned and sound basis for Ms Wenman's valuation assessment, which has not been seriously challenged by the owners. I will affirm the ValuerGeneral's decision and dismiss the application.

Issue for determination

The primary issue for determination is whether the unimproved value of each of the subject properties as at 1 August 2018 adopted by the Valuer-General is fair, just, equitable or correct.

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 PULICH 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: [2021] WASAT 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aldo and Nila Pulich, the owners of two residential properties in Maylands, challenge the decision of the Valuer-General to disallow their objection to the valuation of the unimproved value of their properties. The Valuer-General had adopted a valuation of $600,000 per property as at 1 August 2018. The primary issue for determination is whether the unimproved value of each of the subject properties as at 1 August 2018 adopted by the Valuer-General is fair, just, equitable or correct. In considering the primary issue, the following secondary issues arise: (1) What is the highest and best use of the subject properties? (2) What comparable sales should be taken into account? (3) How should adjustments be made for improvements in calculating unimproved value? The Tribunal affirms the Valuer-General's decision and dismisses the application. The owners' challenge to the Valuer-General's valuation evidence has not been seriously challenged. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Valuer-General's reliance on the expert opinion of Ms Wenham, a qualified licensed valuer, is a reasoned and sound basis for the Valuer-General's decision. Ms Wenham's approach of valuing improvements by their depreciated value, and her assessment of the comparability of each site to the subject properties, have been comprehensively put to her and have been rejected on reasonable grounds. The unimproved value adopted by the Valuer-General is fair, just, equitable and correct.

Orders

1.The application for review of the Respondent's decision dated 18 June 2020 to disallow the Applicants' objection is dismissed.
2.The decision of the Respondent dated 18 June 2020 to disallow the Applicants' objection is affirmed.

Orders