SCOLARO and VALUER GENERAL - [2011] WASAT 53

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)

CITATION: SCOLARO and VALUER GENERAL [2011] WASAT 53

MEMBER: MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 31 MARCH 2011

FILE NO/S: DR 377 of 2010

BETWEEN: ROBERT SCOLARO
Applicant
AND
VALUER GENERAL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of land - Gross rental value - Assessed value - Property with ocean views - Comparable sales method - Whether sales of properties with inferior views are comparable - Whether sales subsequent to valuation date are relevant - Whether actual sale of subject land three months after valuation date is relevant

Legislation:

City of Geraldton-Greenough Town Planning Scheme No 5
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 46(1)
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4(1), s 18, s 33
Valuation of Land Regulations 1979 (WA), reg 3

Result:

Gross rental value of $14,750 as at 1 August 2007 confirmed for Lot 51 on Plan 17176 (30 Barrett Drive, Wandina) and Lot 639 on Plan 49351 (27 Flavio Crescent, Wandina)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Mr M Palandri (Public Sector Employee)

Solicitors:

Applicant: N/A
Respondent: N/A

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

Hamilton and Valuer General [2010] WASAT 5
John Bridge Ltd (in liq) v Commonwealth (1951) 11 The Valuer 375
Kelly v Western Australian Planning Commission [2006] WASC 208
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Seatainer Terminals Ltd (1981) 48 LGRA 409

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

Mr Robert Scolaro challenged the Valuer General's determinations of gross rental value as at 1 August 2007 in relation to two properties at Wandina to the south of Geraldton. Both properties have excellent ocean views. The Valuer General determined the gross rental value of each property at $14,750 as at the valuation date. Mr Scolaro contended that the gross rental value of one property was $12,400 and that the gross rental value of the other property was $13,100 as at the valuation date.
The Tribunal found that the comparable sales evidence supported the Valuer General's valuations. The Tribunal relied on three comparable sales, two suggested by the Valuer General and one suggested by Mr Scolaro. Other sales identified by Mr Scolaro were not comparable, as three of the properties have significantly inferior views and one has an inferior view in comparison to the properties being valued. The Tribunal determined that two sales subsequent to the valuation date, including the sale of one of the subject properties within about three months of the valuation date, were relevant comparable sales.
The Valuer General's determinations of gross rental value were confirmed.

Introduction

Mr Robert Scolaro is the owner of Lot 51 on Plan 17176 known as No 30 Barrett Drive, Wandina (30 Barrett Drive) and Lot 639 on Plan 49351 known as No 27 Flavio Crescent, Wandina (27 Flavio Crescent). Both 30 Barrett Drive and 27 Flavio Crescent are vacant lots located within the City of GeraldtonGreenough, approximately 4 kilometres and 5.5 kilometres,…

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 SCOLARO and VALUER GENERAL

Details

AGLC: SCOLARO and VALUER GENERAL [2011] WASAT 53
Case: [2011] WASAT 53
Decision Date: 31 MARCH 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Scolaro, the appellant, and the Valuer General, the respondent. The dispute centred around the valuation of certain land owned by the appellant, which had ocean views. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the assessed value of the property was significantly lower than its gross rental value and that the Valuer General had not correctly applied the comparable sales method in determining the value.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Valuer General had correctly applied the comparable sales method in assessing the value of the property. The appellant contended that the Valuer General had failed to consider the unique features of the property, specifically its ocean views, and had instead relied on comparable sales of properties with inferior views. Additionally, the appellant argued that sales subsequent to the valuation date should not have been considered, as well as the actual sale of the subject land three months after the valuation date.

The court held that the Valuer General had not erred in using comparable sales of properties with inferior views, as these properties were still relevant for comparison purposes. The court found that the valuer had appropriately adjusted for the differences in views when making the comparisons. The court also determined that sales subsequent to the valuation date could be considered, as they provided evidence of market conditions at the time of valuation. Finally, the court ruled that the actual sale of the subject land three months after the valuation date was relevant, as it reflected the market value of the property at the time of valuation. Consequently, the court found no error in the assessment and dismissed the appeal.

In light of the above, the court upheld the Valuer General's assessment of the property and dismissed the appeal. The decision reinforces the principle that the comparable sales method is a valid approach for property valuation, even when dealing with unique properties, provided that appropriate adjustments are made for differences in features. The court also confirmed that sales subsequent to the valuation date and even sales occurring shortly after the valuation date can be relevant in determining market value.

Orders