RICCARDO RIZZI and VALUER GENERAL - [2025] WASAT 86

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…

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 RICCARDO RIZZI 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: [2025] WASAT 86
Decision Date: 26 AUGUST 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riccardo Rizzi has appealed the gross rental value (GRV) assessment of a commercial property located in Technology Park, Bentley. The property, known as 'Boston Gardens', comprises a two-storey commercial office with 15 suites and is managed by the Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade pursuant to the Industry and Technology Development Act 1998 (WA). The appeal was lodged following the respondent's original assessment of the GRV at $997,185, which was later revised to $889,523. Rizzi was dissatisfied with the revised assessment and served a notice on the respondent requiring the decision to be referred to the Tribunal for review under section 33(2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA). The primary issue for determination is the correct GRV of the property as at the date of valuation of 1 August 2018, having regard to comparable rents.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the principles relevant to the assessment of the GRV, the reliability of the rental evidence, the impact of dilapidation on the total net lettable area, and the determination of variable outgoings. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the condition of the property, including the impact of dilapidation, affects the GRV, and whether the energy efficiency of the building, being a NABERS rated building, was accounted for in the GRV assessment. The court also needed to consider whether the respondent's valuation methodology was appropriate and whether the comparable rents used were reliable.

The court found that the respondent's decision to revise the GRV to $889,523 was reasonable and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The court noted that the respondent had considered comparable rents and other relevant factors in making the assessment, and that the valuation methodology used was appropriate. The court also found that the condition of the property, including the impact of dilapidation, had been properly accounted for in the assessment. The court concluded that the GRV of the property was correctly assessed at $889,523 and that the review application should be dismissed.

The court's final order was to dismiss the review application and affirm the respondent's decision to assess the GRV of the property at $889,523. The court found that the respondent had properly considered all relevant factors in making the assessment and that the valuation methodology used was appropriate. The court also found that the condition of the property, including the impact of dilapidation, had been properly accounted for in the assessment. The court concluded that the GRV of the property was correctly assessed at $889,523 and that the review application should be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

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. 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 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. 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).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.