WINES and VALUER**GENERAL'S OFFICE

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM:   DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: VALUATION OF LAND ACT 1978 (WA)

CITATION:   WINES and VALUER­­GENERAL'S OFFICE [2006] WASAT 207

MEMBER:   JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT)

HEARD:   11 JULY 2006

DELIVERED          :   27 JULY 2006

FILE NO/S:   DR 191 of 2006

BETWEEN:   PATRICK NOEL WINES

Applicant

AND

VALUER­­GENERAL'S OFFICE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Valuation of land – Previous decision of Tribunal on same issues – Reference under Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) s 33 struck out as misconceived or lacking in substance

Legislation:

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 47

Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 33, s 33(1), s 33(2), s 36, s 36(1)

Result:

Proceedings struck out

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Self-represented

Respondent:     Mr D Rutherford (Acting as Agent)

Solicitors:

Applicant:     Self-represented

Respondent:     Department of Land Information

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

Wines and The Valuer‑General [2005] WASAT 263

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: 

Summary of the Tribunal's decision

1. The Tribunal struck out a proceeding referred to the Tribunal under s 33 of the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) on the basis it was misconceived or lacking in substance. In an earlier decision involving the same parties the Tribunal had already ruled against the applicant on essentially the same grounds raised in the new proceedings.

Issue

1. These proceedings came on for a directions hearing before the President on 11 July 2006.

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.

3. The President then decided on 11 July 2006 that the proceeding should be dismissed and so ordered.

4. These reasons constitute the reasons for the decision made by the President on 11 July 2006.

Facts

1. On 29 September 2005, the Tribunal made a decision and published its reasons for decision in proceedings between the applicant (Mr Wines) and the Valuer‑General: see Wines and The Valuer‑General [2005] WASAT 263.

2. In those proceedings, as the reasons of the Tribunal make clear, Mr Wines objected to a determination of unimproved value of land owned by him at Bridgetown, which had been made by the Valuer‑General and took effect as of 30 June 2004.  He estimated that the value of his land was approximately half that of the Valuer‑General's determination.  He sought a review of the decision arguing in effect that fundamental errors of methodology had been made by the Valuer‑General and its expert valuers in relation to:

   •the methodology of valuation;

   •the properties compared and the adjustments made;

   •where one property was a "forced sale";

   •what constituted "merged improvements" to the land; and

   •whether certain improvements should be excluded from valuation.

3. The Tribunal rejected all of Mr Wines' arguments, concluding that the Valuer‑General's expert and other evidence satisfied relevant standards arising out of both the law and practice evaluation, and was otherwise consistent with the statutory regime under the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA).

4. Subsequent…