Legal Research
Cases
Wines and the Valuer General

Wines and the Valuer General

Case [2005] WASAT 263 29 September 2005

Valuation of land

Expert Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

WINES and THE VALUER GENERAL [2005] WASAT 263

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2005] WASAT 263
Act:	VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)
Case No:	DR:367/2005	Heard:	10 MAY 2005
Coram:	MR P McNAB (MEMBER)	Delivered:	29/09/05
No of pages:	23	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	1. Application for review is dismissed 2. The decision under review is affirmed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PATRICK NOEL WINES THE VALUER GENERAL
Catchwords:	Valuation of land Hobby farm semirural residential property Unimproved value Methodology of valuation Expert evidence Use of comparable sales evidence Comparisons and adjustments Words and phrases "Merged improvements" "Forced sale"
Legislation:	Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4, s 19, s 26(4)(b), s 32, Pt IV
Case References:	Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 32 LGRA 170 Cash Resources Aust Pty Ltd v Brett [1996] QSC 32 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] McGeoch v Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (1929) 43 CLR 277 Pyramid Building Society (in liq) v Royalsville Pty Ltd [1997] ANZ Conv R 554; [BC9605216] Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Valuer-General (1981) QLCR 171 Tetzner v Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited [1958] AC 50 Toohey's Ltd v Valuer-General [1925] AC 439 Collins & Ors v The Minister 6 LGR 84
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 : WINES and THE VALUER GENERAL [2005] WASAT 263 MEMBER : MR P McNAB (MEMBER) HEARD : 10 MAY 2005 DELIVERED : 29 SEPTEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : DR 367 of 2005 BETWEEN : PATRICK NOEL WINES

Applicant

AND

THE VALUER GENERAL

Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of land - Hobby farm semirural residential property - Unimproved value - Methodology of valuation - Expert evidence - Use of comparable sales evidence - Comparisons and adjustments - Words and phrases - "Merged improvements" - "Forced sale"

Legislation:

Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4, s 19, s 26(4)(b), s 32, Pt IV

(Page 2)

Result:

1. Application for review is dismissed

2. The decision under review is affirmed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Self-represented

Respondent : Mr M Pritchard

Solicitors:

Applicant : Self-represented

Respondent : Self-represented

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

Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 32 LGRA 170
Cash Resources Aust Pty Ltd v Brett [1996] QSC 32
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]
McGeoch v Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (1929) 43 CLR 277
Pyramid Building Society (in liq) v Royalsville Pty Ltd [1997] ANZ Conv R 554; [BC9605216]
Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
State Government Insurance…

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 Wines and the Valuer General

Details

AGLC: Wines and the Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263
Case: [2005] WASAT 263
Decision Date: 29 SEPTEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wines and the Valuer General, the parties involved were Wines, a property owner, and the Valuer General of the state. The dispute centred on the valuation of a piece of land designated as a hobby farm with semi-rural residential potential. Wines contested the valuation, asserting it was too low, and sought a review of the decision by the Valuer General. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate methodology for valuing the land in question, specifically whether the Valuer General correctly applied the principles of valuation for semi-rural residential properties. The court had to consider whether the Valuer General's approach was in line with established valuation practices, particularly in light of the unique characteristics of the property, including its status as a hobby farm. The court also needed to assess the use of comparable sales evidence and adjustments made to reflect the semi-rural nature of the property.

The court examined the evidence presented, including expert testimony and the methodology employed by the Valuer General. It determined that the Valuer General had correctly identified the property as a semi-rural residential property and had appropriately adjusted the value to reflect its unique characteristics. The court found that the use of comparable sales evidence and the adjustments made were consistent with established valuation practices. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for review and affirmed the decision of the Valuer General. The final orders were that the application for review be dismissed and that the decision under review be affirmed.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Wines and the Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263

Most Recent Citation

Rowles and Valuer*General [2005] WASAT 325

Cases citing this decision · 8 of 8 shown

NINAN and VALUER GENERAL
[2016] WASAT 38 Para 15

…s, at least as regards UV in albeit predominately rural settings) is set out in cases such as Robertson at [10] [15]; Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263 at [15] [19] and Tonkin and Valuer General [2010] WASAT 21 ( Tonkin ). It is therefore unnecessary to reproduce all of that or similar background ma…
Ninan and ANOR and Valuer General
[2012] WASAT 248

…2007] WASAT 213 Tonkin and Valuer General [2010] WASAT 21 Tran and Town of Vincent [2009] WASAT 123 Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263 Orders: On the application determined on the documents by Senior Member Peter McNab, it is on 28 December 2012 ordered that: 1. Subject to any order as to costs, the appl…
PETCHELL and SHIRE OF WILLIAMS
[2011] WASAT 61 Para 2

…Library No 960515, 13 September 1996) and Duffy v Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294 ( Duffy ) reproduced at [22] of Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263 ( Wines ).…
TONKIN and VALUER GENERAL
[2010] WASAT 21 Para 3

…s set out in cases such as Robertson at [10] [15] (there dealing with rural land in the Perth Metropolitan area), and Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263 ( Wines ) at [15] [19] (also dealing with rural land, but in a 'townsite'). It is therefore unnecessary to reproduce all of that background material…
SPANJICH and VALUER GENERAL
[2009] WASAT 204 Para 1

…ory context of the review is set out in cases such as Robertson and Valuer General [2007] WASAT 213 at [10] to [15], and Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263 ( Wines ) at [15] to [19]. It is therefore unnecessary to reproduce that material here, except to set out some key definitions found in the VL Act, a…
Watson and Anor and Valuer*General
[2006] WASAT 224 Para 6

…of the land and its relevant improvements through a process "manifestly recognised in the authorities as artificial" (cf Wines and The Valuer General [2005] WASAT 263 at [55] for a broadly analogous valuation context, where a similar point was made).…
WINES and VALUER**GENERAL'S OFFICE
[2006] WASAT 207 Para 2

…The President then identified the issues whether, in light of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Wines and The Valuer‑General [2005] WASAT 263, the current proceeding should be dismissed.…
Rowles and Valuer*General
[2005] WASAT 325

…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…

View all 8 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

Duffy v The Minister for Planning
[2003] WASCA 294

…Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 32 LGRA 170 Cash Resources Aust Pty Ltd v Brett [1996] QSC 32 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] McGeoch v Fe…
Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue
[2003] HCA 8 Para 18

…method . That method requires that the sales evidence relied on be relevant and sufficient in volume: Maurici v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [(2003) 212 CLR 111] at [18]; (2003) 195 ALR 236 at 242 [18].…
Arcus Shopfitters Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission
[2002] WASC 174 Para 78

…32 As to what is required disclosure, the appellant relies on a statement by Pullin J in [ Arcus Shopfitters Pty Ltd v WAPC [2002] WASC 174] (at [78]) that:…
Cash Resources Aust Pty Ltd v Brett
[1996] QSC 32

…Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways (1973) 32 LGRA 170 Cash Resources Aust Pty Ltd v Brett [1996] QSC 32 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] McGeoch v…
Commonwealth v Arklay
[1952] HCA 76

…d be the price that a willing purchaser would have to pay a vendor willing but not anxious to sell in order to obtain the land: Commonwealth v Arklay (1952) 87 CLR 159 at 169-170; Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 per Griffiths CJ at 432.…
McGeoch v Federal Commissioner of Land Tax
[1929] HCA 29

…aluer-General (unreported, Supreme Court of WA, Parker J, Library No 960515, 13 September 1996 [BC9604209] McGeoch v Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (1929) 43 CLR 277 Pyramid Building Society (in liq) v Royalsville Pty Ltd [1997] ANZ Conv R 554; [BC9605216] Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 State Government I…
Spencer v The Commonwealth
[1907] HCA 82

…ioner of Land Tax (1929) 43 CLR 277 Pyramid Building Society (in liq) v Royalsville Pty Ltd [1997] ANZ Conv R 554; [BC9605216] Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Valuer-General (1981) QLCR 171 Tetzner v Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited [1958] AC 50 Toohey's Ltd…
[1995] WASC 117
[1995] WASC 117

…facts on which the opinion is based or explicitly state the assumptions as to fact on which the opinion is based: Pownall v Conlan Management Pty Ltd (1995) 12 WAR 370; Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1; Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705.…
[1925] AC 439
[1925] AC 439

…Insurance Office (Qld) v Valuer-General (1981) QLCR 171 Tetzner v Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited [1958] AC 50 Toohey's Ltd v Valuer-General [1925] AC 439 Collins & Ors v The Minister 6 LGR 84…
[1958] AC 50
[1958] AC 50

…monwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Valuer-General (1981) QLCR 171 Tetzner v Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited [1958] AC 50 Toohey's Ltd v Valuer-General [1925] AC 439 Collins & Ors v The Minister 6 LGR 84…
[1901] AC 373
[1901] AC 373

…mmonwealth ( supra ) where Isaacs J quoted with approval the following passage in Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs v Charlesworth, Pilling & Co [1901] AC 373 at 391:…
[1996] AC 155
[1996] AC 155

…xplicitly state the assumptions as to fact on which the opinion is based: Pownall v Conlan Management Pty Ltd (1995) 12 WAR 370; Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1; Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705.…
Pty Ltd v Sprowles
636 F Supp 1419

…o fact on which the opinion is based: Pownall v Conlan Management Pty Ltd (1995) 12 WAR 370; Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1; Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA)
4 2 mentions