SILKCHIME PTY LTD and VALUER-GENERAL - [2021] WASAT 151

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)
CITATION:   SILKCHIME PTY LTD and VALUER-GENERAL [2021] WASAT 151
MEMBER:   MS R PETRUCCI, MEMBER
MR D HALL, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER

HEARD:   17 AND 18 AUGUST 2021 AND 20 AND 21 OCTOBER 2021
DELIVERED          :   29 NOVEMBER 2021
FILE NO/S:   DR 56 of 2020
BETWEEN:   SILKCHIME PTY LTD
Applicant
AND
VALUER-GENERAL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) - Valuer-General refusal to extend time for objection for some years - Extension of time to serve objection - Whether 'reasonable cause' shown - Exercise of Tribunal's discretion - Relevant principles applicable to extension of time

Legislation:

City of Joondalup District Planning Scheme No 2
City of Joondalup Local Planning Scheme No 3
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 240(k), s 240(l)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 17(1), s 27(1), s 29(1), s 29(3)
State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 10
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 32, 32(6), s 35(1), s 35(2), s 35(3), s 36A, s 36B

Result:

Decision under review affirmed
Application unsuccessful

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr JRB Ley SC and Mr B Dawson
Respondent	:	Ms C Ide

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Mony De Kerloy Barristers and Solicitors
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Black v City of South Melbourne [1963] VR 34
Jackmarra v Krakouer and Anor (1998) 195 CLR 516
Judge Nominees Pty Ltd v Valuer General (2002) 31 SR (WA) 59
Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd), Re; Fraser v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) (2007) 159 FCR 424
Ninan & Anor ValuerGeneral [2012] WASAT 248
Quinlivan v Portland Harbour Trust [1963] VR 25
Smith and City of Wanneroo [2008] WASAT 182
Stevens v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1978] WAR 232
The Match Group v Metropolitan South West Joint Development Assessment Panel [2014] WASCA 50

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Background

The applicant (Silkchime) is a company incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and is the trustee of the Silkchime Unit Trust. Silkchime is the registered proprietor of land in Warwick (collectively, the Land) which is situated at:
a)83 Ellersdale Avenue, Warwick;
b)14 Dugdale Street, Warwick;
c)99 Ellersdale Avenue, Warwick;
d)30 Dugdale Street, Warwick; and
e)95 Ellersdale Avenue, Warwick.
Mr Norman Phillip Carey (Mr Carey) is a director of Silkchime.
Silkchime was under the control of receivers and managers appointed by first mortgagee financiers (receivers) from 24 January 2006 to 6 March 2019 (the receivership period). The receivers paid some of the assessments on the Land but took no steps to challenge the assessments. After 2010/11 the receivers paid no assessments on the Land. On or about 6 March 2019, following litigation, the receivers retired and control of Silkchime reverted to the directors, including Mr Carey.
On 27 April 2018, Mr Carey wrote to the State Solicitor's Office in reply to their letter…

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 SILKCHIME PTY LTD 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 151
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns an application for review of the Valuer-General's decision to refuse to grant Silkchime an extension of time for service of objections to valuations contained in the Land Tax Notice of Assessment issued for each year from 2005/06 to 2013/14 inclusive. The applicant, Silkchime, sought an extension of time for service of objections to the valuations on the basis that it did not have control of the land and its directors were unaware of the valuations during the relevant period because of factors outside its control. The Valuer-General refused to grant an extension of time on the basis that Silkchime had not shown reasonable cause for the delay in lodging objections. The Tribunal affirmed the Valuer-General's decision. The Tribunal found that Silkchime had not shown reasonable cause for the delay in lodging objections, as the factors relied upon by Silkchime were not the kind of things that would be expected to delay a reasonable person in lodging an objection. The Tribunal also concluded that even if it had found that reasonable cause was shown, it would not have exercised its discretion to extend the time for service of the objection based on other factors such as the length of delay, the reasons for delay and material prejudice.

Orders