RICCARDO RIZZI and VALUER GENERAL
[2025] WASAT 86
•26 AUGUST 2025
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)
CITATION: RICCARDO RIZZI and VALUER GENERAL [2025] WASAT 86
MEMBER: MS C BARTON, MEMBER
HEARD: 10 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED : 26 AUGUST 2025
FILE NO/S: DR 111 of 2023
BETWEEN: RICCARDO RIZZI
First Applicant
RICCARDO RIZZI AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BOSTON INVESTMENT TRUST
Second Applicant
AND
VALUER GENERAL
Respondent
Catchwords:
Valuation of land - Commercial property - Technology precinct - Gross rental value - Principles relevant to the assessment of gross rental value - Valuation methodology - Comparable rents - Reliability of rental evidence - Assessment of net rent - Whether condition of property affects gross rental value - Whether reduction in total net lettable area due to dilapidation - Determination of variable outgoings - NABERS rated building - Whether energy efficiency of building accounted for in gross rental value assessment
Legislation:
Industry and Technology Development Act 1998 (WA), s 6(e)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 17(1), s 27(1), s 27(2), s 27(3), s 29(3), s 29(5), s 32(2)(b)
Town of Victoria Park Local Planning Scheme No 2
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4(1), s 18, s 24(2), s 33(2)
Valuation of Land Regulations 1979 (WA), reg 3(2)(b)
Result:
Application for review dismissed
Decision under review affirmed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| First Applicant | : | In Person |
| Second Applicant | : | In Person |
| Respondent | : | Mr D Dumas (representative of the Valuer General) |
Solicitors:
| First Applicant | : | N/A |
| Second Applicant | : | N/A |
| Respondent | : | N/A |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Ferguson and Valuer General [2025] WASAT 41
J B Investments Pty Ltd v The Valuer-General [2004] WASCA 307
Julians Lodge PL v Commissioner of State Revenue [2001] VCAT 1945
McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
R v Paddington (Valuation Officer); Ex parte Peachey Property Corporation Ltd [1965] 2 All ER 836
Wexler v Playle (VO) [1960] 1 QB 217
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
The first and second applicant, Riccardo Rizzi and Riccardo Rizzi as Trustee for the Boston Investment Trust, respectively (applicant) seek a review of a decision by the Valuer General (respondent or Valuer General) concerning the gross rental value (GRV) of a commercial property at 16 Brodie-Hall Drive, Bentley (property).
In essence, GRV is the total annual rent a property might reasonably be expected to generate if leased, regardless of whether it is currently leased.
The respondent originally assessed the GRV of the property at $997,185. Following the applicant's objection to the original assessment, on 1 May 2023 the respondent revised the GRV to $889,523 (decision). The applicant was dissatisfied with the revised assessment and served a notice on the respondent on 23 June 2023 requiring the decision to be referred to the Tribunal for a review.
On 3 July 2023, following receipt of the applicant's notice, the respondent referred the decision to the Tribunal as required by s 33(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) (VLAct) (review application). The proceeding was ultimately programmed to final hearing, but it was not listed for hearing until 10 June 2025 due to circumstances personal to the applicant.
For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the correct and preferable decision is to dismiss the review application and affirm the respondent's decision.
Issue for determination
The following issue arises for determination:
(a)What is the GRV of the property as at the date of valuation of 1 August 2018 (date of valuation) having regard to comparable rents?
The property
The property is located in Technology Park, Bentley (Technology Park) and has a total land area of approximately 6,513m2. It is formally known as Lot 24 on Plan 15737, being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title Volume 1764 Folio 577.
Pursuant to the Town of Victoria Park Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS 2), Technology Park is zoned 'SU1', being a Special Use zone to promote and consolidate a specialised location for research and development activities supported by a mix of complementary uses.[1] Technology Park is managed by the Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade (Minister) pursuant to s 6(e) of the Industry and Technology Development Act 1998 (WA).
[1] LPS 2, Schedule D.
The sole building on the property, known as 'Boston Gardens', comprises a two-storey commercial office with 15 suites and is of a mediterranean-type architectural design. The building has two prominent street frontages, namely Brodie-Hall Drive (as the principal frontage), and Parker Place. Also located on the property, adjacent to the building, are around 92 car parking bays.
The building was constructed in 2003 and has a total Net Lettable Area (NLA) of 3,944 m2. The table below sets out the floor area of each of the 15 suites.[2]
[2] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 8.
Suite Floor Area (m2) 1 690 2 34 3 149 4 467 5 254 6 114 7 403 10 288 11 209 14 109 15 135 8, 9, 12, 13 1092 TOTAL 3944
The statutory framework
The respondent is required to determine the GRV of the property pursuant to s 18 of the VL Act so far as that value is required by a rating or taxing authority for the purposes of assessing any rate or tax. In this case, the GRV as at the date of valuation is required for rating purposes for the financial year ending 30 June 2021 by the Town of Victoria Park, the Water Corporation and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services as the relevant rating authorities.
'GRV' is the gross annual rent that land might reasonably be expected to realise if leased on an annual basis on condition that the landlord is liable for all rates, charges and other variable outgoings. However, if the GRV cannot reasonably be determined on that basis, then the GRV is the assessed value which is a prescribed percentage of the capital value of the land.[3]
[3] The prescribed percentage for land other than land designated for residential use is 5%: Valuation of Land Regulations 1979 (WA), reg 3(2)(b).
The definition of 'gross rental value' is set out in s 4(1) of the VL Act as follows:
gross rental value of land means the gross annual rental that the land might reasonably be expected to realize if let on a tenancy from year to year upon condition that the landlord were liable for all rates, taxes and other charges thereon and the insurance and other outgoings necessary to maintain the value of the land, provided that —
(a)where the gross rental value of land cannot reasonably be determined on such basis, the gross rental value shall be the assessed value; and
(b)the gross rental value of any land not used for residential purposes only shall, where the value of the improvements on the land is less than one‑third of what would have been the value of the land if it were vacant land, in any event, be not less than what would be the assessed value of the land if it were vacant land; and
(c)the gross rental value of any land separately valued shall, in any event, be not less than $20; and
(d)calculation of the gross rental value of any land shall include any payment normally or usually made for or in relation to a tenancy of the kind in question but shall not include any allowance, by discounting or otherwise, for advance payment or late payment of rent that may apply;
The word 'improvements' (as referred to in the definition of 'gross rental value') is defined in s 4(1) of the VL Act as:
improvements in relation to land means the value of all works actually effected to land, whether above or below the surface, and includes fixtures, but does not include —
(a)machinery, whether fixed to the land or not; or
(b)any below ground works used in the extraction of minerals or petroleum[.]
The word 'land' is defined in s 4(1) of the VL Act to mean 'lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and any improvements to land, and includes any interest in land'.[4] Any improvements on any land that are not, in the opinion of the Valuer General, capable of occupation must not be included in the determination of the GRV of the land.[5]
[4] A 'hereditament' is any item of property that is capable of being inherited. It includes either a corporeal hereditament (land or building) or an incorporeal hereditament (such as rent).
[5] VL Act, s 24(2).
I will next outline the parties' contentions in relation to determining the GRV of the property and the evidence in support of those contentions.
The parties' contentions and expert evidence
The respondent assessed the GRV of the property by applying the direct comparison method. To determine the GRV of the property, the respondent relied on rental evidence from nearby buildings within Technology Park because it considered that evidence to be the most comparable, with leases at or around the date of valuation being the most relevant.[6]
[6] Respondent's statement of issues, facts and contentions filed on 4 April 2025 (Respondent's SIFC), para 14. Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 9.
For the purposes of the definition of 'GRV' in s 4(1) of the VL Act, the respondent contends that there are sufficient comparable rents within Technology Park for the GRV to be calculated for the property.[7] The respondent also assessed the GRV on the basis that sufficient repairs and maintenance have been undertaken to the property to maintain its value.[8]
[7] Respondent's SIFC, para 12.
[8] Respondent's SIFC, para 13.
In support of its position, the respondent relied on the evidence of Mr Adrian Sampey, a Senior Valuer at Landgate, who prepared an expert witness statement in the form of an independent valuation report dated 30 May 2025 (Valuation Report). Mr Sampey holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree, majoring in property, and has almost 25 years' experience as a valuer. He commenced his career with the Valuer General's Office in 2002 providing valuations for rating and taxing purposes. Mr Sampey became a licensed valuer in 2006 and, since 2013, has continued his work in Valuation Services at Landgate conducting statutory valuations.
Mr Sampey obtained rental evidence from property managers, owners and leasing agents that specialise in the Technology Park precinct and determined that effective net rents[9] in the precinct, excluding GST, reflect a range from $131/m2 to $250/m2.[10] He also determined that variable outgoings within the Technology Park precinct range from $90/m2 to $155/m2.[11]
[9] The 'effective net rent' is the actual liability for rent and outgoings after adjustments for any incentives to the face rent are taken into account: Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 9.
[10] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 12.
[11] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 12.
Based on this information, Mr Sampey applied the direct comparison method and assessed the GRV, as at the date of valuation, as equating to an overall rate of $225.5/m2, inclusive of net rent,[12] outgoings and GST.[13]
[12] 'Net rent' is the rent to the owner free of all outgoings: Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 9.
[13] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 13; ts 9, 10 June 2025.
It is the respondent's position that the overall rate for the GRV arrived at by Mr Sampey is supported by the tenancy schedule for the property supplied by the applicant (tenancy schedule), at or around the date of valuation, that shows a passing net rent of $799,066 or $202.6/m2.[14] Having regard to variable outgoings and GST, the respondent contends that the passing gross rent per square metre equates to approximately $292/m2 or $1,151,663.[15]
[14] Respondent's SIFC, para 19. Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 9.
[15] Respondent's SIFC, para 19. Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 9.
Consequently, the respondent says that the GRV of the property of $225.5/m2 or $889,523, that is the subject of the review, is significantly below the passing gross rent for the same period as at the date of valuation.[16]
[16] Respondent's SIFC, para 20; ts 6, 10 June 2025.
In Mr Sampey's opinion, having regard to comparable rents in Technology Park and the tenancy schedule (including vacancies), the GRV of $225.5/m2 or $889,523, based on a NLA of 3,944 m2, is an accurate reflection of a fair gross rental value as at the date of valuation.[17]
[17] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 13.
In contrast, the applicant's position is that the GRV should be assessed at $152.62/m2 or $601,926 as at the date of valuation.[18]
[18] Applicant's statement of issues facts and contentions filed on 30 April 2025 (Applicant's SIFC), para 22. Witness statement of Riccardo Rizzi dated 11 November 2024, para 3.
The applicant does not agree that rental evidence from buildings solely within Technology Park should be relied on for determining the GRV of the property because the precinct is relatively small (with a NLA of approximately 40,000m2) and there are only 23 buildings available for lease.[19] As at the date of valuation, the applicant says that about 36% of the buildings in Technology Park were vacant.[20]
[19] Applicant's SIFC, para 14.
[20] Applicant's SIFC, para 14.
Whilst the applicant acknowledged that there is comparable rental evidence to determine the GRV of the property, the applicant contends that the evidence is not reliable.[21] For example, the applicant observed that five of the 11 examples of comparable rents relied on by the respondent are very small tenancies. The applicant further observed that the other six of the 11 examples of comparable rents relate to tenancies that appear to lack local government planning approval and consent from the Minister for entry to the Technology Park precinct.[22] In any event, the applicant says that the rental evidence for those tenancies is based on hearsay.[23]
[21] Applicant's SIFC, para 12.
[22] Applicant's SIFC, para 12(c).
[23] Applicant's SIFC, para 12(d).
The applicant agreed with the respondent's passing gross rent of $292/m2. However, the applicant contends that the figure does not reflect the current market, as it is derived from older leases, some dating back 10 years, which include escalation clauses providing for annual increases of 3% to 5%.[24] Over an extended period of time the applicant say that this has distorted the market rent.
[24] ts 6, 10 June 2025.
Further, the applicant rejects the respondent's contention that sufficient repairs and maintenance have been undertaken to maintain the value of the property.[25] The applicant observed that that the respondent did not produce any photographic evidence of the state of repair of suites 6, 7 and 14 and contends that those suites are in a dilapidated condition, unrentable, and require full refurbishment.[26] For these reasons, the applicant say that the floor area of suites 6, 7 and 14 (which totals 626 m2) should be removed from the NLA so that the GRV is based on 3,303 m2 and not 3,944 m2.[27]
[25] Applicant's SIFC, para 13.
[26] Applicant's SIFC, para 13; ts 7, 10 June 2025. At the final hearing, the applicant produced photographs showing the condition of the suites taken about one month prior: Exhibit 2; ts 16, 10 June 2025.
[27] ts 29, 10 June 2025.
In relation to variable outgoings, the applicant contends that the respondent has relied on an estimate or average value for outgoings but should have used the actual outgoings.[28] The applicant say that the actual figure for variable outgoings should be around $52.62/m2.[29]
[28] Applicant's SIFC, para 17.
[29] ts 6, 10 June 2025.
By order of the Tribunal, the applicant was required to file a valuation report by an independent licensed valuer in support of his application.[30] The applicant was also asked by the respondent to obtain an independent valuation for the purposes of the Tribunal proceeding.[31] However, the applicant chose not to rely on any expert valuation evidence or produce a valuation report from an independent expert. Whilst the applicant is a civil engineer and undoubtedly has considerable experience in commercial property matters, he is not a licensed valuer and has no valuation qualifications.[32] At the final hearing, the applicant explained that the cost of employing a solicitor and 'getting a valuation done' was well beyond the benefit that he could achieve from the review proceeding.[33]
[30] Order 2 of orders made on 22 March 2024, with time for compliance extended by order 1 of orders made on 30 July 2024.
[31] ts 5, 10 June 2025.
[32] ts 45, 10 June 2025; ts 51, 10 June 2025.
[33] ts 6, 10 June 2025; ts 53, 10 June 2025.
In Ferguson and Valuer General [2025] WASAT 41 (Ferguson), Member Petrucci observed that the Tribunal relies on the evidence of professional qualified valuers because much will turn on the material they collect and the valuation methodology they adopt.[34] The applicant in that case also chose not to call any valuation evidence. Ultimately, the Tribunal in Ferguson accepted the opinion of the independent valuer retained by the Valuer General on two main bases. Firstly, the method of valuation adopted by that expert was not challenged by any contrary expert evidence.[35] Secondly, having regard to the applicant's grounds of objection to the GRV assessment, the Tribunal found no proper reason to reject the valuation evidence adduced by the Valuer General.
[34] Ferguson at [27]. See McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads[No 7] [2011] WASC 223 at [163]. See also Julians Lodge PL v Commissioner of State Revenue [2001] VCAT 1945 at [23] - [24].
[35] Ferguson at [32].
Tribunal's consideration
The applicant is seeking a review of the assessed GRV of the property of $889,523 at the time of valuation. The applicant contends that the GRV of the property should be $601,926. In assessing GRV, there was no dispute that the property:[36]
… is to be assessed at what a hypothetical tenant might reasonably be expected pay to a hypothetical landlord for a tenancy on the hypothesis that both parties are reasonable, the landlord not being extortionate and the tenant not being under any pressures, and the premises being available to be let[.]
[36] See J B Investments Pty Ltd v The Valuer-General [2004] WASCA 307 at [43]; See also R v Paddington (Valuation Officer); Ex parte Peachey Property Corporation Ltd [1965] 2 All ER 836 at 848.
The application falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction pursuant to s 17(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). The review of the decision is by way of a hearing de novo for the purposes of producing the correct and preferable decision based on the material before the Tribunal at the time of the review.[37] The Tribunal is not limited to the material before the respondent as the original decision-maker but may consider new material.[38] Nor is the review limited to the reasons for decision or any grounds for review set out in the application.[39]
[37] SAT Act, s 27(1) and s 27(2). The Tribunal may consider new material whether or not it existed at the time the decision was made by the respondent.
[38] SAT Act, s 27(1).
[39] SAT Act, s 27(3).
In conducting the review, the Tribunal is to act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal forms.[40] Section 29(3) of the SAT Act confers specific power on the Tribunal to make any order it considers appropriate including an order to affirm, vary or set aside the respondent's decision.[41]
[40] SAT Act, s 32(2)(b).
[41] SAT Act, s 29(3). The Tribunal's decision is to be regarded as, and given effect as, a decision of the respondent: SAT Act, s 29(5).
At the final hearing, the applicant accepted the bulk of the Valuation Report and only sought to press two specific issues.[42] Firstly, the state of repair of suites 6, 7 and 14 at the date of valuation, and secondly, the portion of the GRV allocated to variable outgoings. Also in dispute is whether there is comparable rental evidence to support the applicant's figure of $100/m2 for net rent (or, alternatively, the respondent's figure of between $131/m2 to $250/m2). I will address each of these issues in turn.
State of repair of suites 6, 7 and 14
[42] ts 6 - 7, 10 June 2025.
The applicant observed that the GRV of suites 6, 7 and 14, as set out in the table on page 12 of the Valuation Report, is either the same value or greater than the value of all of the other 'display' suites which the applicant said had been fully renovated.[43] The table shows the calculations and the GRV of the suites, including suites 6, 7 and 14, and the assessed GRV of the property of $225.5/m2.
[43] ts 27 - 28, 10 June 2025.
The applicant contends that, at the date of valuation, suites 6, 7 and 14 were in a dilapidated condition and, consequently, the floor area of those suites should be removed from the NLA that applies to the GRV of the property as those suites have been vacant for many years and could attract no rent.[44]
[44] ts 28 - 29, 10 June 2025; ts 31, 10 June 2025.
In Mr Sampey's opinion, the GRV of suites 6, 7 and 14 should be the same as the 'display' suites based on rental evidence collected within Technology Park.[45] Mr Sampey recalled inspecting the property in November and December 2020 because of previous Tribunal proceedings.[46] He observed that at that point in time a tenant had moved out of suite 6 and it was vacant. Mr Sampey said that he would not describe the suite as uninhabitable or dilapidated.[47]
[45] ts 21 June 2025; ts 28, 10 June 2025.
[46] ts 15, 10 June 2025.
[47] ts 15, 10 June 2025.
I accept the uncontested evidence of Mr Sampey, and I find, that suites 6, 7 and 14 were capable of being occupied at the date of valuation and were spaces for which a reasonable rent could be determined.[48] I am satisfied that Mr Sampey's approach to the assessment of the GRV of suites 6, 7 and 14 is appropriate, notwithstanding the applicant's view of their dilapidated condition because GRV is assessed, for the purposes of s 4(1) of the VL Act, 'upon condition' that the landlord is responsible for the cost of repair and maintenance of the property to maintain its value and, therefore, the property is in a reasonable state of repair.[49] For these reasons, I do not accept the applicant's contention that the floor area of suites 6, 7, and 14 should be removed from the calculation of the GRV of the property.
[48] ts 15 - 16, 10 June 2025.
[49] See Wexler v Playle(VO) [1960] 1 QB 217.
Mr Sampey provided an independent assessment of the GRV of the property based on the tenancy schedule and comparable rental evidence collected from within Technology Park. He is a licensed valuer with considerable experience in conducting statutory valuations, and his methodology was not challenged by any contrary valuation evidence that would support a finding that the GRV for suites 6, 7 and 14 should be lower. Consequently, I accept Mr Sampey's uncontested expert evidence, and I find, that the assessed GRV as it applies to suites 6, 7 and 14 should be the same as the 'display' suites.
Variable outgoings
Under cross-examination, Mr Sampey said that the figure he relied on for the variable outgoings component of the GRV, being $110/m2, was derived from the tenancy schedule.[50] However, according to the applicant, the information he provided in the tenancy schedule for outgoings is a budgeted figure for each financial year, some of which would have been returned to tenants following reconciliation.[51]
[50] ts 31, 10 June 2025.
[51] ts 32, 10 June 2025.
In determining the GRV of the property, Mr Sampey ultimately adopted the rounded-down figure of $70/m2 for outgoings.[52] This figure was based, Mr Sampey said, on particulars of leasing evidence provided to the respondent which showed outgoings in the Technology Park precinct to be between $90/m2 and $155/m2; a range he considered reasonable.[53] Other evidence relied on by Mr Sampey included questions raised in Parliament on 15 March 2018 (which he observed was close to the date of valuation) that reveal the outgoings for suite 5 as $109.97/m2.[54]
[52] ts 35, 10 June 2025.
[53] ts 35, 10 June 2025.
[54] ts 35, 10 June 2025. Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 12 and pages 30 - 32.
The applicant contends that the variable outgoings, for the purposes of determining the passing gross rent, should be $52.62/m2 and not the figure of $70/m2 ultimately adopted by the respondent.[55] According to the applicant, the lower figure of 52.62/m2 should be relied on because the building, which has a 5.5 star NABERS rating, has enormous energy efficiencies (as a result of LED lighting, double glazing, and the absence of a lift) which results in the running costs, and hence the variable outgoings, being very low.[56]
[55] ts 10, 10 June 2025. Witness statement of Riccardo Rizzi dated 11 November 2024, para 2.
[56] ts 37, 10 June 2025.
Mr Sampey provided an independent assessment of the variable outgoings component of the GRV of the property based on the tenancy schedule and leasing evidence provided to the respondent.[57] The applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine Mr Sampey on any assumptions he had made in his assessment of variable outgoings and I find that Mr Sampey credibly defended his position. In contrast, the applicant did not adduce any expert evidence to support his contention that the lower figure of $52.62/m2 should be adopted for variable outgoings based on the property's reduced running costs.
[57] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, pages 27 - 29.
For these reasons, I accept the uncontested expert evidence of Mr Sampey, and I find, that the variable outgoings component of the GRV should be the figure of $70/m2 adopted by the respondent and not $52.62/m2 as contended by the applicant.
Net rent
Finally, the applicant contends that the net rent for the property equates to $394,400 or $100/m2.[58] The applicant rejects the respondent's assessment of effective net rent of $130/m2 to $250/m2 because he says those figures are based on old leases.[59]
[58] Witness statement of Riccardo Rizzi dated 11 November 2025, para 1.
[59] ts 40, 10 June 2025.
In oral evidence, Mr Sampey said that the information that he had obtained from within Technology Park showed effective net rents much higher than $100/m2 at the date of valuation.[60] Indeed, Mr Sampey had not seen any evidence from his research to support the rate per square metre relied on by the applicant for an office building, or any commercial space, in Technology Park.[61] Mr Sampey referred the Tribunal to a table in the Valuation Report, based on comparable rental evidence, that showed net effective rents for 11 properties in the Technology Park precinct were over $100/m2.[62]
[60] ts 10, 10 June 2025.
[61] ts 10, 10 June 2025.
[62] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 11.
Based on the uncontested expert evidence of Mr Sampey, which I accept, I find that the net rent of $100/m2 proposed by the applicant is not supported by the information provided to the respondent in respect of leases in the Technology Park precinct. I find Mr Sampey's approach to the determination of net rent, based on 11 properties in the Technology Park precinct, to be reasoned and sound.
Conclusion
The applicant has not raised any matter in the review proceeding that I consider should disturb Mr Sampey's methodology for the assessment of the GRV of the property. Consequently, the correct and preferable decision is to dismiss the application for review and affirm the respondent's decision made on 1 May 2023 which assessed the GRV of the property as $889,523.
The Tribunal is not a valuation agency and must rely on the competence and integrity of professionally qualified valuers when conducting a review.[63] Whilst the applicant did not wish to expend funds on commissioning a valuation report, his analysis of the GRV assessment process may have benefitted from the input of an independently retained valuer.
[63] See Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273 at [183].
Orders
The Tribunal orders:
1.The application for review is dismissed.
2.The respondent's decision made on 1 May 2023 assessing the gross rental value of 16 Brodie-Hall Drive, Bentley, as $889,523 as at the date of valuation of 1 August 2018 is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS C BARTON, MEMBER
26 AUGUST 2025
0
5
5