JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: SILKCHIME PTY LTD -v- VALUER-GENERAL [2023] WASCA 114
CORAM: BUSS P
BEECH JA
MORRISON AJA
HEARD: 8 MAY 2023
DELIVERED : 24 JULY 2023
FILE NO/S: CACV 76 of 2022
BETWEEN: SILKCHIME PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
VALUER-GENERAL
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: TOTTLE J
File Number : GDA 15 of 2021
Catchwords:
Administrative law - Where Valuer-General refused to grant extension of time to serve objections to land valuations - Whether reasonable cause for delay in objecting to valuations - Whether State Administrative Tribunal's conclusion that there was not reasonable cause was legally unreasonable - Whether primary judge erred in upholding State Administrative Tribunal's decision - Proper construction of s 32(6) of Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) - Principles of legal unreasonableness - Whether question of reasonable cause capable of review on grounds of legal unreasonableness
Legislation:
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 32
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 105
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | K de Kerloy |
| Respondent | : | A J Sefton SC |
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | Mony De Kerloy |
| Respondent | : | State Solicitor's Office (WA) |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
A v Corruption and Crime Commissioner [2013] WASCA 288; (2013) 306 ALR 491
ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] HCA 34; (2020) 269 CLR 439
BFH16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 54; (2020) 274 FCR 532
Commissioner for Consumer Protection v Carey [2014] WASCA 7
D'Amore v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2013] NSWCA 187; (2013) 303 ALR 242
Giudice v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2014] WASCA 115
Humich Nominees Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Main Roads [2020] WASCA 175
Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] HCA 28; (2022) 96 ALJR 819
Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v Samsung C&T Corporation [2016] WASCA 130; (2016) 50 WAR 399
Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Rayney [2017] WASCA 78; (2017) 51 WAR 142
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko‑Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Minister for Home Affairs v DUA16 [2020] HCA 46; (2020) 271 CLR 550
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11; (2016) 237 FCR 1
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; (2018) 264 CLR 541
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 249 CLR 332
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB [2004] HCA 32; (2004) 78 ALJR 992
Minister for Immigration v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; (2010) 240 CLR 611
Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice [2010] HCA 24; (2010) 241 CLR 320
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Silkchime Pty Ltd v 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] WASCA 114
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the Tribunal's decision not to accept Silkchime's explanation for the delay was legally unreasonable, and if so, whether Silkchime had demonstrated such unreasonableness. The appellant argued that it was not necessary to determine the applicability of the concept of legal unreasonableness to the Tribunal's finding, as it had not established legal unreasonableness in any event. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the Tribunal's decision was sound and that Silkchime had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim of reasonable cause for the delay.
The court held that it was not necessary to determine the applicability of legal unreasonableness in this case because Silkchime had not demonstrated that the Tribunal's finding was legally unreasonable. The court found that the Tribunal's decision was supported by the evidence, and that Silkchime had not provided sufficient evidence to establish reasonable cause for the delay. The court noted that Silkchime's witness statement did not provide specific evidence of steps taken to obtain copies of the notices of assessment or information about the valuation amounts, or of any specific barriers to obtaining the notices or information.
The court concluded that Silkchime had not discharged the onus of establishing reasonable cause for the delay in lodging its objections, and that the Tribunal's decision was therefore not legally unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed, and Silkchime was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
In our view, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to determine any question as to the application of legal unreasonableness, as explained in Minister for Immigration v Li, to the Tribunal's finding that reasonable cause had not been established to its satisfaction. It is not necessary because, as explained below, assuming favourably to the appellant that legal unreasonableness, as explained in Minister for Immigration v Li, applies to the finding as to reasonable cause, the appellant has fallen well short of demonstrating legal unreasonableness in the Tribunal's finding. In those circumstances, and in circumstances where the parties did not address any detailed or considered submissions as to the applicability of the concept of legal unreasonableness to the finding that reasonable cause had not been established to the Tribunal's satisfaction, it is preferable not to determine any such question. It was for the appellant to satisfy the Tribunal that there was reasonable cause for the delay in making the objections. We begin by outlining the evidence adduced by the appellant with a view to so satisfying the Tribunal. The appellant relied on Mr Carey's witness statement to demonstrate the reasonable cause for the delay. In essence, the statement was to the following effect:(1)Neither he nor any other director of the appellant saw or became aware of the Land Tax Notices of Assessment from the 2006/2007 financial year onwards until 2019. Neither he nor any other director of the appellant was aware of the valuations of the Land and nor were they in a position to object to any such valuations.[69](2)When Mr Carey first resumed duties as a director of Silkchime, he obtained from the receivers the records they had kept. However, after perusing those records, he considered he would require source documents. The statement then says, 'In the result, it took me several months to obtain the necessary documents from the ING receivers and to properly collate and verify all of the financial information of Silkchime'.[70] [69] Statement of Mr Carey [37] - [52], [64].[70] Statement of Mr Carey [75]. As the respondent submits, Mr Carey's witness statement provided no specific evidence of steps taken to obtain copies of the notices of assessment or information about the valuation amounts or of any specific barriers to obtaining the notices or information. Mr Carey's evidence was also not specific about when the notices of assessment were finally obtained and about how long it took to lodge the objections after the notices were received. In that regard, Mr Carey's witness statement merely said that 'in the course of obtaining the source documents from the ING receivers', he had cause to consider the notice of assessment for the 2018/2019 financial year dated 26 September 2018, the valuation for which struck him as an enormous increase. Accordingly, on behalf of Silkchime, Mr Carey lodged the objection on 16 July 2019.[71] [71] Statement of Mr Carey [84] - [89]. With reference to what was said in his witness statement as to events after the receivers retired, Mr Carey was asked in cross‑examination when it was that he received all the source documents he requested from ING. His response was that his recollection was that it took about three or four months to get 'all the assessments they were referring to'. He then said that his lawyers 'ended up' getting some of the assessments from Landgate.[72] [72] ts 42.