ROWLES and VALUERGENERAL [2005] WASAT 325

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2005] WASAT 325
Act:	VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)
Case No:	DR:9/2004	Heard:	28 APRIL 2005 28 JULY 2005
Coram:	MR P McNAB (MEMBER)	Delivered:	18/11/05
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	1. The application for review is dismissed 2. The decision under review is affirmed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GRAHAM ROWLES VALUERGENERAL
Catchwords:	Valuation of land Rural land Unimproved value of small farmholding Challenge to methodology, assumptions and data used by the ValuerGeneral No expert evidence called in rebuttal Alleged anomalous increase from previous years "Valuer's art" Tribunal satisfied that practice and law of land valuation followed Tribunal accepted expert evidence of valuer Application for review dismissed
Legislation:	Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4, s 17(4), s 19, s 21, s 26(4)(b), s 32
Case References:	Duffy v Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294 Lake Karrinyup Country Club Inc v Valuer-General (Unreported, Supreme Court of WA, Parker J, Library No 960515, 13 September 1996 [BC9604209]) Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263 Nil
Orders	1. The application for review is dismissed.,2. The decision under review is affirmed.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES ACT : VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA) CITATION : ROWLES and VALUERGENERAL [2005] WASAT 325 MEMBER : MR P McNAB (MEMBER) HEARD : 28 APRIL 2005

28 JULY 2005

DELIVERED : Edited reasons delivered extemporaneously on 18 NOVEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : DR 9 of 2004 BETWEEN : GRAHAM ROWLES

Applicant

AND

VALUERGENERAL

Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of land - Rural land - Unimproved value of small farmholding - Challenge to methodology, assumptions and data used by the ValuerGeneral - No expert evidence called in rebuttal - Alleged anomalous increase from previous years - "Valuer's art" - Tribunal satisfied that practice and law of land valuation followed - Tribunal accepted expert evidence of valuer - Application for review dismissed

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4, s 17(4), s 19, s 21, s 26(4)(b), s 32

Result:

1. The application for review is dismissed

2. The decision under review is affirmed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Selfrepresented

Respondent : Mr J Clark

Solicitors:

Applicant : Self-represented

Respondent : N/A

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

Duffy v Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294
Lake Karrinyup Country Club Inc v Valuer-General (Unreported, Supreme Court of WA, Parker J, Library No 960515, 13 September 1996 [BC9604209])
Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

1 This application for review concerned the unimproved value of a small farming property near Northampton. The Valuer-General valued the property as at 1 August 2003 (the relevant date for valuation purposes) as worth not less than $62 500 in its unimproved state. The owner, Mr Rowles, objected to this valuation estimating that $53 400 was a better valuation.

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.

Continue reading Rowles and Valuer*General

Details

AGLC: Rowles and Valuer*General [2005] WASAT 325
Case: [2005] WASAT 325
Decision Date: 18 NOVEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rowles and Valuer General, the dispute arose from a challenge to the valuation of a small rural farmholding. The applicant sought to review the valuation conducted by the Valuer-General, arguing that the unimproved value of the land was improperly assessed. The matter was heard and determined in the Queensland Land Court. The court was tasked with determining whether the Valuer-General's methodology, assumptions, and data used in the valuation process were flawed. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the tribunal's acceptance of the Valuer-General's expert evidence was justified and whether the alleged anomalous increase in the valuation from previous years was properly accounted for.

The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate application of land valuation principles and the standard of proof required to challenge the Valuer-General's assessment. The applicant contended that the Valuer-General's approach was flawed and did not adhere to established valuation practices. The court examined whether the tribunal had erred in its assessment of the evidence and the methodology used. Furthermore, the court considered the role of expert evidence in land valuation and whether the tribunal's reliance on the Valuer-General's expertise was appropriate.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the tribunal had correctly applied the relevant principles of land valuation and had not erred in law. The court held that the Valuer-General's methodology was consistent with established practices and that the tribunal's acceptance of the Valuer-General's expert evidence was justified. The court further determined that the alleged anomalous increase in valuation was adequately explained by the Valuer-General. The tribunal's conclusion that the "valuer's art" had been properly exercised was upheld, and the applicant's challenge to the valuation was dismissed.

Consequently, the application for review was dismissed, and the decision under review was affirmed. The tribunal's valuation of the rural land was upheld, and the applicant's objections were rejected. This decision underscores the deference afforded to the expertise of the Valuer-General in matters of land valuation and the limited scope for judicial review in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for review is dismissed. 2. The decision under review is affirmed.

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.

ROWLES and VALUER­GENERAL [2005] WASAT 325

Continue reading Rowles and Valuer*General

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

ROWLES and VALUERGENERAL [2005] WASAT 325