//
[2025] WASAT 41
General information, not legal advice.
State Administrative Tribunal (WA)
2025-05-12
Original judgment source is linked above.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
[2] The Valuer General reduced the GRV of the property at the DOV from $37,440 to $34,320 on 23 July 2024 following Mr Ferguson's objection. In that objection Mr Ferguson was of the view that the GRV was $32,000 (HB at pages 75 to 84).
[5] Mr Ferguson's position has changed over time. On 1 December 2024, in a written statement filed with the Tribunal (HB at page 130) he claimed the GRV of his property at the date of valuation is $17,250. In his written statement filed with the Tribunal on 18 February 2025, Mr Ferguson asserted that the GRV for his property was $20,966. Then, on 6 March 2025, Mr Ferguson in a written statement filed with the Tribunal he set out three alternative options for the GRV: first $22,308, second $26,520 and third using the 'assessed value' of the land. Ultimately, at the final hearing, Mr Ferguson only pursued the second option, that is a GRV at the DOV for his property of $26,520.
[18] As the Tribunal is not 'a valuer' this limits the role of the Tribunal in a valuation case. However, those limits do not require the Tribunal to act on any evidence of a valuer, which for a proper reason, the Tribunal does not accept.
[20] However, in his statement to the Tribunal filed on 1 December 2024, Mr Ferguson states that he undertook renovations and additions which included a 'swimming pool'.
Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd and Valuer General [2016] WASAT 23
Duffy v The Minister for Planning [2003] WASCA 294
Hafez and Valuer General [2012] WASAT 103
Julians Lodge PL v Commissioner of State Revenue [2001] VCAT 1945
McKay v Commission of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223