YOUNG and VALUER GENERAL - [2009] WASAT 228

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: LAND TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 2002 (WA)

CITATION: YOUNG and VALUER GENERAL [2009] WASAT 228

MEMBER: MS J HAWKINS (MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 16 NOVEMBER 2009

FILE NO/S: DR 400 of 2009

BETWEEN: BRETT YOUNG
Applicant
AND
VALUER GENERAL
Respondent

Catchwords:
Valuation of land - Coastal residential property - Methodology of valuation - Use of comparable sales evidence
Legislation:
Land Tax Act 2002 (WA), s 4, s 5
Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27(2)
Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA), s 4, s 4(1)
Result:
Dismissed
Category:    B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant:     Self-represented
Respondent:     Mr M Palandri (Representative)

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

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Brzezinski and Office of the Valuer General [2008] WASAT 166
Duffy v The Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision
1Mr Young objected to the determination of the unimproved value of his property in Cottesloe. The Valuer General valued the unimproved value as at 1 August 2007 at $2,050,000.
2The applicant chose not to obtain any expert valuation evidence. The Valuer General relied on a report prepared by a valuer and scrutinised by two other valuers from the Valuer General's Office.
3The matter turns on its own facts.
4Due to the lack of evidence, including expert evidence, the Tribunal did not accept the submissions raised by the applicant. The Tribunal considered that the valuation made by the Valuer General had been correctly performed and therefore the decision on value was affirmed. The application to review was dismissed.

Background and Issue
5Mr Young is the registered owner of No 16 (Lot 35) Margaret Street, Cottesloe, described in Certificate of Title Volume 70, Folio 197A (16 Margaret Street). 16 Margaret Street has a house upon it which Mr Young maintains has been vacant since 2004 due to it having poor wiring, being subject to white ants and having a leaking roof. It is currently used by Mr Young for office storage.
6This is an application for review of an objection to the valuation of the unimproved value of 16 Margaret Street made by the Valuer General on 28 July 2009 for the purposes of land tax assessment pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act 1978 (WA) (VL Act) (valuation). The Valuer General had originally assessed the unimproved value of the land at $2,390,000. Following an objection lodged by Mr Young, by letter dated 11 May 2009, the valuation of the unimproved value of 16 Margaret Street was reduced to $2,050,000. Mr Young has objected to the reduced valuation of $2,050,000 and seeks a review of that decision.
7The matter was the subject of a directions hearing on 30 October 2009 at which time Senior Member Parry ordered that the matter be listed before me for mediation on 6 November 2009. It was also ordered that in the event that agreement was not…

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 YOUNG 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: [2009] WASAT 228
Decision Date: 16 NOVEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between the taxpayer, Young, and the Valuer General regarding the valuation of coastal residential property. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue was the appropriate methodology for valuing coastal residential property, particularly the use of comparable sales evidence in the valuation process. The court had to determine whether the lower courts correctly applied the principles of valuation in this context.

The legal issues before the court included whether the use of comparable sales evidence was an appropriate method for valuing coastal residential property, and if the lower courts had erred in their application of valuation principles. The court considered whether the principles of valuation required a different approach for coastal properties compared to inland properties. The court also had to examine the extent to which the lower courts' reliance on comparable sales evidence was consistent with established valuation practices.

The court found that the lower courts had applied the correct principles of valuation in this case. The court held that the use of comparable sales evidence was an appropriate method for valuing coastal residential property, provided it was applied correctly. The court held that there was no requirement for a different approach to be used for coastal properties compared to inland properties. The court found that the lower courts had not erred in their application of valuation principles, and that their reliance on comparable sales evidence was consistent with established practices. The court concluded that the valuation methodology employed by the lower courts was appropriate in this case.

The final orders of the court affirmed the decision of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal brought by the taxpayer. The court held that the valuation of the coastal residential property was correctly determined, and that the principles of valuation were correctly applied in this instance.

Orders