1. The applicant observed that the GRV of suites 6, 7 and 14, as set out in the table on page 12 of the Valuation Report, is either the same value or greater than the value of all of the other 'display' suites which the applicant said had been fully renovated.[43] The table shows the calculations and the GRV of the suites, including suites 6, 7 and 14, and the assessed GRV of the property of $225.5/m2.
2. The applicant contends that, at the date of valuation, suites 6, 7 and 14 were in a dilapidated condition and, consequently, the floor area of those suites should be removed from the NLA that applies to the GRV of the property as those suites have been vacant for many years and could attract no rent.[44]
3. In Mr Sampey's opinion, the GRV of suites 6, 7 and 14 should be the same as the 'display' suites based on rental evidence collected within Technology Park.[45] Mr Sampey recalled inspecting the property in November and December 2020 because of previous Tribunal proceedings.[46] He observed that at that point in time a tenant had moved out of suite 6 and it was vacant. Mr Sampey said that he would not describe the suite as uninhabitable or dilapidated.[47]
4. I accept the uncontested evidence of Mr Sampey, and I find, that suites 6, 7 and 14 were capable of being occupied at the date of valuation and were spaces for which a reasonable rent could be determined.[48] I am satisfied that Mr Sampey's approach to the assessment of the GRV of suites 6, 7 and 14 is appropriate, notwithstanding the applicant's view of their dilapidated condition because GRV is assessed, for the purposes of s 4(1) of the VL Act, 'upon condition' that the landlord is responsible for the cost of repair and maintenance of the property to maintain its value and, therefore, the property is in a reasonable state of repair.[49] For these reasons, I do not accept the applicant's contention that the floor area of suites 6, 7, and 14 should be removed from the calculation of the GRV of the property.
5. Mr Sampey provided an independent assessment of the GRV of the property based on the tenancy schedule and comparable rental evidence collected from within Technology Park. He is a licensed valuer with considerable experience in conducting statutory valuations, and his methodology was not challenged by any contrary valuation evidence that would support a finding that the GRV for suites 6, 7 and 14 should be lower. Consequently, I accept Mr Sampey's uncontested expert evidence, and I find, that the assessed GRV as it applies to suites 6, 7 and 14 should be the same as the 'display' suites.

1. Under cross-examination, Mr Sampey said that the figure he relied on for the variable outgoings component of the GRV, being $110/m2, was derived from the tenancy schedule.[50] However, according to the applicant, the information he provided in the tenancy schedule for outgoings is a budgeted figure for each financial year, some of which would have been returned to tenants following reconciliation.[51]
2. In determining the GRV of the property, Mr Sampey ultimately adopted the rounded-down figure of $70/m2 for outgoings.[52] This figure was based, Mr Sampey said, on particulars of leasing evidence provided to the respondent which showed outgoings in the Technology Park precinct to be between $90/m2 and $155/m2; a range he considered reasonable.[53] Other evidence relied on by Mr Sampey included questions raised in Parliament on 15 March 2018 (which he observed was close to the date of valuation) that reveal the outgoings for suite 5 as $109.97/m2.[54]
3. The applicant contends that the variable outgoings, for the purposes of determining the passing gross rent, should be $52.62/m2 and not the figure of $70/m2 ultimately adopted by the respondent.[55] According to the applicant, the lower figure of 52.62/m2 should be relied on because the building, which has a 5.5 star NABERS rating, has enormous energy efficiencies (as a result of LED lighting, double glazing, and the absence of a lift) which results in the running costs, and hence the variable outgoings, being very low.[56]
4. Mr Sampey provided an independent assessment of the variable outgoings component of the GRV of the property based on the tenancy schedule and leasing evidence provided to the respondent.[57] The applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine Mr Sampey on any assumptions he had made in his assessment of variable outgoings and I find that Mr Sampey credibly defended his position. In contrast, the applicant did not adduce any expert evidence to support his contention that the lower figure of $52.62/m2 should be adopted for variable outgoings based on the property's reduced running costs.
5. For these reasons, I accept the uncontested expert evidence of Mr Sampey, and I find, that the variable outgoings component of the GRV should be the figure of $70/m2 adopted by the respondent and not $52.62/m2 as contended by the applicant.

1. Finally, the applicant contends that the net rent for the property equates to $394,400 or $100/m2.[58] The applicant rejects the respondent's assessment of effective net rent of $130/m2 to $250/m2 because he says those figures are based on old leases.[59]
2. In oral evidence, Mr Sampey said that the information that he had obtained from within Technology Park showed effective net rents much higher than $100/m2 at the date of valuation.[60] Indeed, Mr Sampey had not seen any evidence from his research to support the rate per square metre relied on by the applicant for an office building, or any commercial space, in Technology Park.[61] Mr Sampey referred the Tribunal to a table in the Valuation Report, based on comparable rental evidence, that showed net effective rents for 11 properties in the Technology Park precinct were over $100/m2.[62]
3. Based on the uncontested expert evidence of Mr Sampey, which I accept, I find that the net rent of $100/m2 proposed by the applicant is not supported by the information provided to the respondent in respect of leases in the Technology Park precinct. I find Mr Sampey's approach to the determination of net rent, based on 11 properties in the Technology Park precinct, to be reasoned and sound.

1. The applicant has not raised any matter in the review proceeding that I consider should disturb Mr Sampey's methodology for the assessment of the GRV of the property. Consequently, the correct and preferable decision is to dismiss the application for review and affirm the respondent's decision made on 1 May 2023 which assessed the GRV of the property as $889,523.
2. The Tribunal is not a valuation agency and must rely on the competence and integrity of professionally qualified valuers when conducting a review.[63] Whilst the applicant did not wish to expend funds on commissioning a valuation report, his analysis of the GRV assessment process may have benefitted from the input of an independently retained valuer.

1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The respondent's decision made on 1 May 2023 assessing the gross rental value of 16 Brodie-Hall Drive, Bentley, as $889,523 as at the date of valuation of 1 August 2018 is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

[2] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 8.

[3] The prescribed percentage for land other than land designated for residential use is 5%: Valuation of Land Regulations 1979 (WA), reg 3(2)(b).

[4] A 'hereditament' is any item of property that is capable of being inherited. It includes either a corporeal hereditament (land or building) or an incorporeal hereditament (such as rent).

[6] Respondent's statement of issues, facts and contentions filed on 4 April 2025 (Respondent's SIFC), para 14. Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 9.

[9] The 'effective net rent' is the actual liability for rent and outgoings after adjustments for any incentives to the face rent are taken into account: Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 9.

[10] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 12.

[11] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 12.

[12] 'Net rent' is the rent to the owner free of all outgoings: Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 9.

[13] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 13; ts 9, 10 June 2025.

[14] Respondent's SIFC, para 19. Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 9.

[15] Respondent's SIFC, para 19. Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 9.

[16] Respondent's SIFC, para 20; ts 6, 10 June 2025.

[17] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 13.

[18] Applicant's statement of issues facts and contentions filed on 30 April 2025 (Applicant's SIFC), para 22. Witness statement of Riccardo Rizzi dated 11 November 2024, para 3.

[26] Applicant's SIFC, para 13; ts 7, 10 June 2025. At the final hearing, the applicant produced photographs showing the condition of the suites taken about one month prior: Exhibit 2; ts 16, 10 June 2025.

[30] Order 2 of orders made on 22 March 2024, with time for compliance extended by order 1 of orders made on 30 July 2024.

[32] ts 45, 10 June 2025; ts 51, 10 June 2025.

[33] ts 6, 10 June 2025; ts 53, 10 June 2025.

[34] Ferguson at [27]. See McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223 at [163]. See also Julians Lodge PL v Commissioner of State Revenue [2001] VCAT 1945 at [23] - [24].

[36] See J B Investments Pty Ltd v The Valuer-General [2004] WASCA 307 at [43]; See also R v Paddington (Valuation Officer); Ex parte Peachey Property Corporation Ltd [1965] 2 All ER 836 at 848.

[37] SAT Act, s 27(1) and s 27(2). The Tribunal may consider new material whether or not it existed at the time the decision was made by the respondent.

[41] SAT Act, s 29(3). The Tribunal's decision is to be regarded as, and given effect as, a decision of the respondent: SAT Act, s 29(5).

[44] ts 28 - 29, 10 June 2025; ts 31, 10 June 2025.

[45] ts 21 June 2025; ts 28, 10 June 2025.

[49] See Wexler v Playle (VO) [1960] 1 QB 217.

[54] ts 35, 10 June 2025. Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 12 and pages 30 - 32.

[55] ts 10, 10 June 2025. Witness statement of Riccardo Rizzi dated 11 November 2024, para 2.

[57] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, pages 27 - 29.

[58] Witness statement of Riccardo Rizzi dated 11 November 2025, para 1.

[62] Expert witness statement of Adrian Sampey dated 30 May 2025, page 11.

[63] See Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273 at [183].