Valuation of land - Rural land - Unimproved value - Small farm holding - General challenges to methodology, assumptions and data used by the Valuer General - No expert evidence called in rebuttal - Alleged anomalous or unjustified increase in land values from previous years - Alleged 'discrimination' - Applicant raising extraneous matters of levels of expenditure in relation to the provision of government services to her - Direct comparison of comparable sales - 'Valuer's art' - Coordination of land values - Tribunal satisfied that law and practice of land valuation followed - Tribunal accepted expert evidence of valuers - Question of costs raised by Tribunal

Legislation:

Shire of Beverley Town Planning Scheme No 2
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 32(3), s 33

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Mr J Clark (Representative)

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Valuer General's Office

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

Hamilton and Valuer General [2010] WASAT 5
Julians Lodge PL v Commissioner of State Revenue [2001] VCAT 1945
Lake Karrinyup Country Club Inc v Valuer-General (unreported, WASC, Library No. 960515, 13 September 1996)
Robertson and Valuer General [2007] WASAT 213
Rowles and Valuer General [2005] WASAT 325
Spanjich and Valuer General [2009] WASAT 204
Weld Club Trustees and Valuer General [2007] WASAT 256
Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

The applicant, Ms Angela Tonkin, sought a review of a decision of the respondent, the Valuer General, to determine the unimproved value of a small farmholding that she owned in the Shire of Beverley, of some 24 hectares, as $182,000 on the relevant date fixed by law, namely 1 August 2007.
Ms Tonkin did not call any expert evidence in reply to that tendered by the Valuer General. Nor did she appear to take issue with the base data of comparative sales or coordinated values as to other properties in the vicinity, as was supplied by the Valuer General. She did take issue, in a general way, with some aspects of the methodology, assumptions and the interpretation of data used or undertaken by the Valuer General.
However, Ms Tonkin's real concern lay with the idea that she was being 'discriminated' against because of the increase in the value of land during the relevant period, particularly having regard to the allegedly poor level of services that she received from government. The Tribunal said that Ms Tonkin had focused on 'perceived injustices that she [thought] flow[ed] from the alleged overvaluing of her land as it relate[d] to the level of services that the State provide[d] to her and that she [was] obliged to contribute to,…

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 TONKIN and VALUER GENERAL

Details

AGLC: TONKIN and VALUER GENERAL [2010] WASAT 21
Case: [2010] WASAT 21
Decision Date: 16 FEBRUARY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between the Valuer General and a property owner, Tonkin, regarding the valuation of a small rural farm holding. The disagreement centred on the unimproved value of the land and the methodology, assumptions, and data used by the Valuer General in determining this value. The matter was heard by the Valuer General Review Tribunal, which was responsible for assessing whether the tribunal's valuation was correct in law or made a mistake on a question of fact. The issues that the tribunal needed to resolve included whether the Valuer General's valuation process adhered to the relevant legal standards and practices, and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the valuation, particularly in light of the applicant's concerns about the consistency of land values over time and the alleged discrimination in the provision of government services.

The tribunal examined the evidence provided by both parties and found that the Valuer General's assessment was based on a rigorous application of the principles of land valuation. The tribunal was satisfied that the Valuer General had followed the law and established practices in land valuation, and had accepted the expert evidence provided by the valuers engaged by the Valuer General. The tribunal also noted that the applicant had not provided any expert evidence in rebuttal and had raised extraneous matters, such as the levels of government expenditure on services, which were not relevant to the issue of land valuation. The tribunal concluded that the Valuer General's valuation was consistent with the 'valuer's art' and the coordination of land values, and that the applicant's arguments about the anomalous or unjustified increase in land values were not supported by the evidence. The tribunal also addressed the question of costs, noting that the applicant had raised the issue but did not provide any grounds for the tribunal to consider an order for costs.

In summary, the tribunal dismissed the application and found in favour of the Valuer General, affirming the correctness of the land valuation. The tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and the application of established principles of land valuation. The tribunal found that the Valuer General had followed the law and practice in determining the unimproved value of the land and that the applicant's arguments were not supported by the evidence. The tribunal did not make any order for costs, as the applicant had not provided any grounds for the tribunal to consider such an order.

Orders