Held, granting the application and striking out the proceedings:

• The applicant has deliberately failed to clarify issues and has caused delay to Tribunal proceedings.
• The applicant has deliberately incurred unnecessary expense and inconvenience to the respondent.
• There is a want of prosecution, and the proceedings are being conducted in a way that continuously disadvantages the respondent.
• In the circumstances it is appropriate to strike out the application for review under s 49 of the SACAT Act.
• The applicant will need to seek permission from a Presidential member before bringing any further proceedings in SACAT of a similar kind.

Administrative Review - Valuation of Land Act 1971 - Review conducted as appeal de novo

Administrative Tribunals - Procedure - Statutory powers - Dismissing proceedings on withdrawal or for want of prosecution

Administrative Tribunals - Procedure - Statutory powers - Proceedings being conducted to cause disadvantage

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 8, s 35, 45, s 47, and s 49

Valuation of Land Act 1971 s17, s 25C, s 26

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 r 3, r 4

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulations 2015 (SA) reg 7

Local Government Act 1999 s 148, s 167, s 168

Re AKS [2016] SACAT 19

Bargwanna Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2011] SASC 67

Martin v Valuer-General [2020] SACAT 104

Shires v Commissioner for Consumer Affairs [2022] SACAT 15

Beverage Bottlers (SA) Ltd (in Liquidation) & Anor v Abode Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] SASC 272

Hani & Boukhizam v Green & Green [2018] SACAT 28

1. This is a ruling on the papers regarding the respondent's interlocutory application for the Tribunal to strike out the current proceedings. The proceedings relate to an application for review of a decision or decisions of the Valuer-General.
2. The Respondent seeks the following orders:

a) The Applicant's proceedings be struck out pursuant to ss 49(1) and 49(2) and (3) of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act) on the grounds that the proceedings are being conducted in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages the Respondent; or alternatively > > b) The Applicant's proceedings be struck out pursuant to ss 47(4) and 47(6) of the SACAT Act for want of prosecution. > > c) Costs of the Application only in the event that the Application is opposed. > > d) Such further or additional orders as the Tribunal may consider appropriate.

3. The applicant had been invited to file a response to the strike out application.
4. A written submission filed by the applicant on 20 April 2022 appears to be a submission about the substantive application for review of the decision of the Valuer-General and not about the application to strike out the proceedings under s 47 or s 49 of the SACAT Act.
5. The Tribunal has taken Ms Shires' written submission into account but notes that it does not directly address the issues raised by the respondent in the interlocutory application. It is of note that, in her most recent submission, the applicant still apparently refuses to accept that the Valuer-General has made two separate valuation decisions and has not determined the Capital Value of the entire property to be $55,350.00.

1. In her application for review filed with the Tribunal on 21 June 2021 (accepted by SACAT when the fee was eventually paid on 9 September 2021), the applicant seeks an increase in the valuation of the Capital Value for the entire Subject Property (the substantive/primary valuation) to $285,000.
2. The applicant refers in her SACAT application form to two letters from the Office of the Valuer-General dated 20 November 2020 and 6 May 2021. Both letters reference a valuation number 4103130009 regarding an objection to the assessed Capital Value of the subject property.
3. The first letter, dated 20 November 2020, refers to an objection decision regarding the Capital Value for the entire property of $205,000 for the 2020-21 financial year.
4. The second letter dated 6 May 2021 refers to an objection decision regarding the Capital Value of the entire property for the 2020-21 financial year of $205,000 and the separate Capital Value of the individual occupancies on the subject property for the 2020-21 financial year at $55,350, $55,350, $55,350 and $38,950. The Capital Value of Unit 1 (in which Ms Shires apparently resides) is $55,350.00.
5. There appear to be two reviewable decisions. The review to SACAT in relation to both decisions have been filed out of time (the time in which to file a review under s 25C of the Valuation of Land Act 1971 is 21 days). The respondent has not taken the time point to date, but the Tribunal would need to deal with an extension of time argument at the full hearing if the matter proceeded to that point.
6. Before listing the matter for hearing the Tribunal (and the respondent) has been attempting to ascertain whether Ms Shires is seeking to review the valuation objection decision of the Valuer-General about the Capital Value of the entire subject property, or the valuation objection decision about the Capital Value of the individual occupancies, or both.
7. It has been difficult to obtain a straight answer from Ms Shires about this simple issue. From subsequent communications between Ms Shires and the Tribunal and between Ms Shires and the respondent, it appears that Ms Shires considers that the Valuer-General has assessed the Capital Value for the entire subject property at $55,350. This is clearly not what the objection decision letters state, nor is it what the Land Services valuation record reveals. Ms Shires apparently now seeks an increase in the Capital Value for the entire subject property from $55,350 to $285,000.[1]

Review under Valuation of Land Act

1. The SACAT Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to determine such a review within its review jurisdiction, which is governed by Division 3 of Part 3 of the SACAT Act, in particular by ss 34 - 38 of the SACAT Act.
2. Pursuant to s 25C(3)(b) of the Valuation of Land Act 1971 (VL Act) the Tribunal will consider the matter de novo. That is a Latin phrase which essentially means that the Tribunal will start again and determine the matter afresh, and will not be influenced in any way by the initial decision of the Valuer-General.
3. On a review to the Tribunal of a valuation under s 25C of the VL Act, the Tribunal may increase or decrease a valuation.[2]
4. The applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that a different valuation should have been made but need not demonstrate an error in the original decision.[3] This is a de novo 'merit review' and the Tribunal may be satisfied to reach the same or a different decision based on the material before the initial decision maker, or on that material and any additional material tendered on the review.
5. Given that this is a de novo review, it would be relevant and helpful to the Tribunal to receive an updated valuation report from an expert valuer who has had an opportunity to gain access to the exterior and interior of the subject property for the purpose of providing such a report.
6. In any review under Part 4 of the SACAT Act, the statutory objectives of the SACAT Act must be kept in mind. These are set out in s 8 of the SACAT Act and in Rules 3 and 4 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (SACAT Rules). The objectives are that SACAT proceedings need to be economical, fair, flexible, just and quick, and conducted with a minimum of formality and technicality. Efficiency and proportionality are to be borne in mind.
7. Based on information in affidavits [4] filed by the respondent for the purpose of the strike out application, documents filed with the Tribunal by both parties, and the Tribunal's observations of the conduct of the applicant at directions hearings the Tribunal makes the following findings.

1. The Applicant is the registered owner of a property located at 52 Mulgundawah Road, Murray Bridge (the Subject Property) (CT5333/890). This is not in dispute.
2. The Subject Property falls within the council area of the Rural City of Murray Bridge (RCMB).
3. The Applicant seeks a review by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), pursuant to s 25C of the VL Act_,_ of a decision of the Valuer-General. In her SACAT application form, the applicant identified a Valuer-General's decision dated 31 August 2020[5] which she argues assessed the Capital Value of her property at $55,350.00. She purports to have sought an internal review (an objection) of that decision with a final decision, dated 2 June2021, confirming the valuation at $55,350.[6]
4. Ms Shires submits in her application for review that the correct Capital Value valuation is $285,000 and that the land use code used by the Valuer-General is incorrect.[7]
5. In a subsequent email sent to the Tribunal registry on 8 September 2021, Ms Shires appears to assert that her valuation objection has not been dealt with at all and that she would seek to review the decision not to respond to her objection.[8]
6. The respondent has filed a book of documents under s 35 of the SACAT Act and has identified two decisions made by the Valuer-General regarding the subject propriety in the relevant period, namely:

The Valuer-General's determination that as of 1 January 2020 (and therefore for the 2020/2021 rating year), the Capital Value of the Subject Property as a whole was $205,000.

The Valuer-General's determination that as of 1 January 2020 (and therefore for the 2020/2021 rating year), the Capital Value of each of the four occupancies/units on the Subject Property were the following:

a) Unit 1 (1310 - Ground Floor Home Unit only): $55,350

b) Unit 2 (1310 - Ground Floor Home Unit only): $55,350

c) Unit 3 (1310 - Ground Floor Home Unit only): $55,350

d) Unit 4 (1315 - Detached Single Storey Home Unit): $38,950

1. The combined value of the capital valuations for each of the four occupancies is $205,000.
2. The Valuer-General submits that she has been provided with information from the RCMB that the subject property owned by Ms Shires has been divided by the applicant into four distinct residences or occupancies. Further, the respondent has been informed by RCMB that Ms Shires resides in one of those tenancies (Unit 1).[9]
3. In reliance on the information provided by the RCMB, the Valuer-General has therefore made two separate valuation decisions concerning Ms Shires' interests in the property. One regarding the subject property as a whole and one for the single occupancy in which she apparently resides (and the three other occupancies apparently occupied by other tenants).
4. The latter valuation has been provided by the Valuer-General to the RCMB for the purpose of a rates assessment.[10] A Council may request the Valuer-General to value any land or any portion of land for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1999 (LGA) in order to make a rates assessment.[11]
5. For the purpose of a rates decision made by RCMB under s 148 of the LGA, the Council may request the Valuer-General to provide a valuation of 'any piece or section of land subject to separate ownership or occupation'. The Council made such a request in relation to the Capital Value of each of the separate occupancies that they have identified on the property for the 2020/21 rating year.[12]
6. From information provided to SACAT (in emails attached to the affidavits and at directions hearings) it appears that Ms Shires disputes the factual information provided by the RCMB to the Valuer-General about the separation of the land into separate occupancies. Ms Shires seems to argue that, as there has been no development application or development decision made by the Council relating to any subdivision of the property, there is only one occupancy on the property (her own). The information about the fact of the occupancies is recorded by the RCMB in a rates assessment record.
7. The respondent's counsel submits that it is not necessary for a development application to have been made or approved for there to be separate occupancies on a parcel of land.
8. Information provided to the Valuer-General by RCMB establishes that the Council has been imposing rates on each of the four units or occupancies on the subject land since 2014. I agree with the respondents submission that if Ms Shires is unhappy with that state of affairs (the factual finding about the existence of four separate occupancies) her argument is with the RCMB not the Valuer-General. The Valuer-General has relied upon information provided by the RCMB about those facts. This has been repeatedly explained to Ms Shires throughout these proceedings by both the Tribunal and the respondent's counsel.
9. Further, Ms Shires did bring related proceedings against the Council to seek a review of the information recorded on the rates assessment register about her property. Until recently, the other proceedings were listed, heard and determined together with these proceedings at various directions hearings pursuant to an order made by the Tribunal under s 45 of the SACAT Act.
10. The related review proceedings brought by Ms Shires against the RCMB in SACAT file No: 2021/SA003554 about the rates assessment issue were struck out by the Tribunal on 3 March 2022 as Ms Shires had failed to first pursue an internal review with the Council as required by s 173(6) of the LGA. That meant there was no reviewable decision for the Tribunal to review.
11. This is the second such application brought by Ms Shires against the RCMB that has been struck out by the Tribunal for identical reasons.[13] If Ms Shires wishes to review a decision of the Council about that issue in SACAT she will first need to file an internal review with the Council about their rates assessment decision. Ms Shires ought to be well aware of this as that was the basis of the first order to strike out proceedings against the Council. Until she does so the RCMB will presumably continue to assess rates on the basis that there are four occupancies at the property.

1. Since Ms Shires filed the current review with SACAT, the Tribunal and the respondent have attempted on a number of occasions to clarify with the applicant which decision of the Valuer-General she is actually complaining about in order to identify the parameters of the review, to enable the respondent to prepare its submissions, and to assist the Tribunal in the review proceedings. Ms Shires has failed, to date, to clarify this issue. She maintains that the Valuer-General has made a valuation decision about the Capital Value of the entire property of $55,350.00 when it is clear that she has not.

1. Further, the respondent has attempted to progress this matter by arranging for an inspection of the subject property under s 26 of the Valuation of Land Act 1971. One of the purposes of the proposed inspection is to enable an expert valuer to prepare, on behalf of the respondent, an expert valuation report for the purposes of the review proceedings. This would presumably enable an up-to-date valuation of the property as a whole, clarify the existence of the separate occupancies and provide an up-to-date valuation of the individual occupancies which are said to exist at the property.
2. Since filing her review the Tribunal finds that the applicant has been obstructive to the land and property inspection process which has caused disadvantage to the respondent and to the proper conduct of the proceedings in SACAT. Further, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has been obstructive by failing to identify which decision is the subject of her review proceedings, or to delineate the parameters of the review.
3. In summary:
   1. The applicant lodged her application for a review of the respondent's decision(s) on 21 June 2021.[14] Since that date, a preliminary s 50 telephone conference was held on 6 October 2021 and directions hearings were held on 17 December 2021, 31 January 2022 and 3 March 2022.
   2. At the preliminary telephone conference, the respondent submits that arrangements were made with the applicant to enable the respondent to inspect the subject property.
   3. I accept that, to date, the respondent has not inspected the subject property for the reasons provided in the De Heus affidavit.[15] I accept that the Valuer-General has attempted on a number of occasions to progress this matter by attempting to arrange inspections of the subject property. The applicant has provided various reasons to the Valuer-General, or to the Valuer-General's counsel, to refuse to allow officers from the Office of the Valuer-General to access the property to undertake the inspection. These include issues about the alleged professionalism of officers of the Office of the Valuer-General and about government employees generally. She has attempted to impose conditions on any permission that she might provide to permit the inspection of her property. I find the reasons given by the applicant to oppose the inspection, and the conditions that she requires to be met by the Office of the Valuer-General before permitting inspection, to be unreasonable and obstructive.
   4. Although the applicant has never amended the relief which she seeks from the Tribunal, communications from the applicant suggest that the applicant's concerns in relation to the decisions made by the respondent have shifted to the Capital Value of only one of the 4 Units, as opposed to the Capital Value of the entire property. However, she is still apparently seeking a valuation reassessment outcome of $285,000 for the entire property. The Tribunal finds that this issue has been deliberately obfuscated by the applicant who appears to disingenuously misinterpret the decisions of the Valuer-General, set out in the letter dated 6 May 2021 (regarding the Capital Value of Unit 1), as a decision about the Capital Value of the entire subject property. To interpret the decision letter or the Valuer-General's official records in such a way is frankly absurd and is contrary to the facts.
   5. The applicant's conduct at directions hearings and in emails has left the respondent and the Tribunal in the dark as to the precise nature of the applicant's arguments on the review. The Tribunal finds that this is, in no small part, due to the conscious actions of the applicant to prolong, delay and deliberately complicate the proceedings.
   6. At the directions hearing on 17 December 2021, the Tribunal Member endeavoured, without success, to elicit from the Applicant the specific decision that she objected to and the precise nature of her complaint or objection. The Tribunal's relevant orders are attached to this decision.
   7. The Applicant had the opportunity to clarify the precise nature of her complaint at the directions hearings held on 31 January 2022 and 3 March 2022 but she failed to do so.

1. The Applicant has also caused disadvantage to the respondent and has unnecessarily obstructed the conduct of the review proceedings in the Tribunal by electing not to attend directions hearings either in person or by telephone since 28 January 2022.[16]
2. The applicant failed to attend directions hearings on 31 January 2022 and 3 March 2022. Ms Shires professes to be banned from appearing in SACAT in a private capacity (i.e., to prosecute an administrative review in the administrative and disciplinary list in her capacity as a private citizen and not in her capacity as a registered land agent)[17] and will not now attend to appear at any SACAT hearing or make any oral submissions in this matter.
3. There is no factual basis for Ms Shires' views in this respect and she has been repeatedly advised that she has not been banned from appearing at SACAT to prosecute administrative reviews as a private citizen.[18]
4. The applicant has elected not to attend two directions hearings by telephone despite being urged to do so and was warned by the Tribunal of the potential consequences if she failed to attend. An applicant for review cannot expect that the Tribunal will permit him or her to prosecute their whole review in writing. The respondent submits that the applicant did not have good reasons on either occasion for her non-attendance at directions hearings and the Tribunal accepts those submissions.
5. The applicant indicated via email to the Tribunal on 2 March 2022 that she would not be attending the directions hearing due to being banned from SACAT, being pregnant, having limited access to a phone, and her imminent incarceration in the Adelaide Women's prison. She was requested to provide an alternate phone number, which she failed to do, and the directions hearing continued in her absence.
6. On 20 April 2022 (after the directions hearing directing the applicant to file a submission to the strike out application), via email to the SACAT registry, the applicant requested a lengthy adjournment of the proceedings and a hearing about the substantive application for review to be held after 17 May 2022. She filed a medical certificate from an unnamed medical practitioner (containing no Medicare provider number) suggesting that she is 'unfit for work' from 29 March 22 to 17 April 22 due to pregnancy. The Tribunal does not accept this certificate as a valid medical certificate as it does not identify the medical practitioner, neither is pregnancy or the birth of a child a good reason (without more detail) to support a lengthy adjournment of the proceedings.
7. The applicant was requested to file a response in writing to the respondent's strike out application.
8. On 20 April 2022 the applicant filed a submission about the substantive review proceedings. She has not filed a response to the respondent's strike out application. The applicant maintains again in this most recent submission that the subject land as a whole has been valued by the Valuer-General at $55,350, despite the respondent repeatedly clarifying that such is not the case. This factual issue is very clear from the correspondence from the Valuer-General to the applicant dated 25 November 2020 and 6 May 2021 and from the Valuer-General's records held by Land Services SA.[19]
9. The latest submission from the applicant again demonstrates a failure to properly identify the decision under review to enable the proceedings to be advanced to a hearing.
10. It appears that the applicant refuses to accept that the Valuer-General has provided separate valuations for the respective occupancies (which she denies exist). She has consistently maintained in these proceedings that the Valuer-General has valued her entire property at $55,350.00 (which the Valuer-General disputes and which is clearly not the case from the filed documents).
11. In the Tribunal's view, the position taken by the applicant in the current proceedings has been completely disingenuous and has been a deliberate ploy to 'muddy the waters' and drag out the review proceedings.
12. The issue about the existence or otherwise of the disputed occupancies could be readily resolved by Ms Shires permitting the Valuer-General's officers to enter the property to enable a valuation of the entire property and of any separate occupancies to occur. She has failed to do so. The applicant has caused unnecessary expense and inconvenience to the respondent and has conducted the proceedings in such a way that it has amounted to a waste of the Tribunal's time and resources.
13. The Tribunal accepts the respondent's submission that there are limits about how far the Tribunal should go in allowing more time to unrepresented applicants to prosecute an administrative review. The Tribunal has repeatedly invited the applicant in this matter to seek legal advice, but she has failed to do so.
14. Whilst purporting to take steps to prosecute her review, the applicant has failed to attend directions hearings, failed to permit an inspection of the property to resolve the factual dispute, and she has continuously failed to clarify or identify the reviewable decision and the issues in dispute.
15. I refer to the comments of Kourakis J in Beverage Bottlers (SA) Ltd (in Liquidation) & Anor v Abode Enterprises Pty Ltd[20] (a case considering the question of the dismissal of proceedings for failure to prosecute):

"Although the case management practices of this Court vary considerably from those of the Federal Court, two classes of delay have been identified in that court as "obvious candidates" for the exercise of the power to dismiss for want of prosecution even though the delay has not prejudiced the ultimate hearing of the matter. The first class comprises cases in which the history of non-compliance by an applicant is such as to indicate an inability or unwillingness to cooperate with the Court and other parties or to have the matter ready for trial within an acceptable period. The other class comprises cases where non-compliance is continuing and occasioning unnecessary delay, expense or other prejudice to the respondent"

16. I am satisfied that there is continued dilatoriness by Ms Shires in prosecuting the matter (sufficient to find that there is a want of prosecution), but more so - the proceedings are being conducted in such a way that they are causing significant disadvantage to the respondent.
17. The list of matters in s 49 of the SACAT Act which may support a finding that proceedings are being conducted in a way to cause disadvantage to a respondent are not exhaustive,[21] but Ms Shires' conduct falls within at least two of those sub-paragraphs. She has failed to attend directions hearings (and she has made it clear that she will not attend at the Tribunal again as she considers herself banned) and, she has failed to comply with a request to permit officers of the Office of the Valuer-General to enter and inspect the property under s 26 of the Valuation of Land Act for the purpose of assisting the Tribunal on the review. To that I would add that she has vexatiously failed to identify the decision under review.
18. If proceedings are dismissed or struck out under this section another proceeding of the same kind can be brought by the applicant, but she must first seek the leave of a Presidential Member. This will mean that the applicant may seek to review another valuation decision about the same property, but she will need to submit a leave application at the same time.
19. If Ms Shires is not granted leave under s 49(4) of the SACAT Act, she will not be entitled to seek a review of any future valuation decision regarding the subject property or occupancies on that property.[22]
20. The respondent has sought a costs order should the application be opposed. I observe that the default position under s 57 is that each party will bear their own costs.
21. Whilst an order to dismiss proceedings under s 49 of the SACAT Act constitutes an exception to that default position,[23] I decline to make that order in this case. The strike out application was opposed by inference (given that Ms Shires has refused to respond to it), but I observe that she is unrepresented, and the application was dealt with by the Tribunal on the papers.[24]
22. In the circumstances, I consider that this is just enough to amount to a good reason not to award costs against the applicant. However, should Ms Shires obtain leave in future proceedings, and should she continue to conduct proceedings in the Tribunal in a similar manner, a future Tribunal Member on a strike out application may not be so minded to not make a costs order.

1. The Tribunal makes the following orders:
   1. The proceedings are struck out pursuant to s 49(2) of the SACAT Act on the grounds that the proceedings are being conducted in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages the Respondent.
   2. Another proceeding of the same kind in relation to the same matter cannot be commenced without the leave of a Presidential Member.
   3. No order as to costs.

In attendance (via telephone) Ms H Shires in person

Made under the South Australian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 section 43(2)

1. There are two valuation decisions made by the Valuer-General regarding the property at 52 Mulgundawah Road, Murray Bridge as at 1 January 2020. It is not in dispute that Ms Shires is the registered owner of the property.
2. The first decision is the primary valuation ($205,000) in respect of the entire property That valuation is based on the premise that Ms Shires is the sole registered owner and sole occupier of the property.
3. The second valuation decision is based on information provided by the Rural City of Murray Bridge to the Valuer-General, namely that there were four separate occupancies on the property (in four separate units) as of 1 January 2020. Accordingly, the Valuer - General has also provided a second capital valuation for each of the four occupancies based on the second scenario.
4. According to information provided by the Council, Ms Shires apparently resides in Unit No 1 at 52 Mulgundawah Road, Murray Bridge. The capital valuation which the Valuer - General has determined for Unit 1 ONLY is $55, 350.00.
5. The capital valuation assessed by the Valuer-General for the remaining 3 units is $55, 350 (Unit 2), $55, 350 (Unit 3) and $38, 950 (Unit 4). Together the individual valuations of each of the 4 units adds up to $205,000. 6. In the hearing today the Tribunal Member attempted to determine whether Ms Shires was disputing both valuations or only one of the valuations (and if so which), or neither valuation but rather the factual information provided by Council used to assess the land valuation.
6. Ms Shires appeared to indicate that she was objecting to the capital valuation of Unit 1 (which she occupies), which is $55 350.00. In one email communication sent to the respondent's counsel Ms Shires seems to be under the impression that the Valuer - General had valued the single Unit at both $205,000 and $55, 350. It is clearly the respondent's position that that is not the case. In the directions hearing Ms Shires appeared to indicate that she is not objecting to the primary valuation of the entire property being $205 000. However, Ms Shires was unrepresented at the directions hearing today. She was also seemingly distressed, with elevated mood and her conversation was somewhat tangential. She also continually spoke over the Tribunal Member and the respondent's counsel, Ms Knobel, during the course of the directions hearing. Accordingly, in my view it would be inappropriate to rely on any indication she made about the areas of dispute in this matter.
7. Ms Knobel, the Valuer-General's counsel, referred to the filed email exchange between herself and Ms Shires (between 15 - 17 December). She suggested that the Ms Shires' real concern may be with the information provided to the Valuer-General by the Council about its determination that there are 4 separate occupancies on the property. That determination by the Council has informed the capital valuation of each Unit made by the Valuer - General, which in turn has been used to assess the rates imposed by Council.
8. Ms Shires' dispute with the Council about the factual determination/information used to assess rates is the subject of a separate SACAT application 2021/SA003554 that was listed before me earlier today. Given that the two proceedings concern the same facts or similar circumstances regarding the same property and given that Ms Shires is involved in both matters as an applicant for review, I have determined that it is appropriate to make an order under s 44 of the SACAT Act that the 2 sets of proceedings remain as separate matters but be heard and determined together.
9. I have strongly recommended that the applicant, Ms Shires, seeks legal advice and/or representation in relation to both of these matters and I will adjourn this matter to enable her to do so. The two matters will be listed together in late January.
10. A copy of this direction will be sent to the Council's representative, Mr D Mazzachi, in matter no. 2021/SA003554. A copy of the direction made on 17 December 2021 in matter no. 2021/SA003554 will be sent to Ms Knobel in this matter.

1. The Tribunal adjourns this matter for a further directions hearing on a date to be determined but not before 18 January 2022. One hour will be set aside for the further hearing.
2. Under s 45(1)(b) of the South Australian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 I direct that this matter will be heard and determined together with SACAT matter 2021/SA003554.

In attendance Ms L Knobel for Valuer-General (via telephone)

Ms D Mazzachi for Rural City of Murray Bridge ( in a related matter) (via telephone)

Made under the South Australian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 section 43(2)

1. The Applicant did not attend the directions hearing today. It is apparent from communications between Ms Shires and the registry on the file that she is under the misapprehension that she is banned from SACAT (due to her reading some information in a newspaper article which apparently relates to other proceedings). She has apparently complained to the President of SACAT.
2. I am advised that there is no order in SACAT banning Ms Shires from appearing in the Tribunal in her private capacity to prosecute this review. I will adjourn the matter so that Ms Shires can attend the next hearing in this matter.
3. Ms Shires is advised that her failure to comply with directions issued in this matter, and any failure to attend any further directions hearing may result in the matter being dealt with and determined in her absence.
4. Ms Knobel foreshadows an intention to seek directions or an order from the Tribunal authorising a Member of the Tribunal or an officer of the Valuer General's office to enter and inspect the interior of all buildings on the relevant parcel of land to determine the number of occupancies on the land. To date there have only been external inspections of the property (although Mr Mazzachi notes there was a partial internal inspection in 2017 by a council officer). Ms Knobel submits that the question of how the building(s) on the subject land are being used and how many separate occupancies there are is squarely a fact in issue in this matter.
5. Ms Knobel directed the Tribunal to s 26 Valuation of Land Act 1971 (VL Act) and ss 41 and 44 of the SACAT Act. There was some discussion at the directions hearing about Ms Knobel filing a formal application seeking directions from SACAT authorising entry and inspection of the property, however, the Tribunal observes that s 26 VL Act and s 41 SACAT Act are enabling provisions providing power respectively to the Valuer General and the Tribunal to enter and inspect property.
6. The powers under the VL Act can be exercised as considered appropriate in the absence of an application to SACAT. It would be relevant to any request that SACAT exercise the power of inspection under s 41 of the SACAT Act to inquire whether the Valuer - General had taken reasonable steps to enter the property under 26 of the VL Act. In any event I will defer further consideration of this issue to the next directions hearing.

1. The matter is adjourned for a further directions hearing to be held in the week commencing Monday 28 February 2022 on a date and at a time to be advised.

In attendance Ms L Knobel for the Valuer-General

Made under the South Australian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 section 43(2)

1. This is the third directions hearing in this matter regarding valuation decisions made by the Valuer-General regarding the property at 52 Mulgundawah Road Murray Bridge as at 1 January 2020. It is not in dispute that Ms Shires is the registered owner of the subject property.
2. Ms Shires failed to attend the hearing today. She failed to answer her mobile phone although it did go to voicemail and a message was left for her. Ms Shires has previously been advised in the Tribunal's directions on 31 January 2022 at paragraph 2 of the findings that her failure to comply with directions issued in this matter and any failure to attend any further directions hearing may result in the matter being heard and determined in her absence.
3. Ms Shires also failed to attend on the last occasion. She professed in an email to being banned from appearing at SACAT. As I indicated in the last directions hearing there is nothing to indicate that Ms Shires is banned from appearing at SACAT to prosecute her private reviews of reviewable decisions under s 34 of the SACAT Act. 4. Ms Knobel, for the respondent, indicated that she now has instructions to file a strike out application with an accompanying affidavit under one of the relevant provisions in Part 4 of the SACAT Act. It is appropriate to allow the respondent time to file that application with an accompanying affidavit and serve it on the applicant. I will allow time for that to occur and time for a response to be filed and will then proceed to hear and determine the matter on the papers.
4. I do that because Ms Shires has repeatedly failed to attend directions hearings in this matter and has made it clear that she will not attend at SACAT in the future as she considers that she is banned. She says that she no longer has a telephone so she will not participate in hearings via telephone, and she will not attend in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic given her personal circumstances.

1. The respondent is to lodge with the Tribunal and serve on the applicant an outline of argument on the strike out application with an accompanying affidavit by close of business on 15 March 2022.
2. The applicant is to lodge with the Tribunal and serve on the respondent a response in writing as to why she says the proceedings should not be struck out by close of business on 29 March 2022.
3. The matter is adjourned for further consideration of the strike out application on the papers after the outlines have been filed.

4. The parties will be advised of the Tribunal's decision in writing.

[1] The Valuer General has filed a valuation record, dated 3/09/21, which reveals that the Capital Value of the subject property (CT 5333/890) as at 1/01/2021 is not $55, 3500 but $205, 000.

[2] Valuation of Land Act 1971 (SA) s 25C(3)(c) ('VLA').

[3] Re Aks [2016] SACAT 19; Bargwanna Pty Ltd v Valuer-General [2011] SASC 67; Martin v Valuer- General [2020] SACAT 104.

[4] Affidavit of Lisette Knobel affirmed on 11 March 2022 and affidavit of Andrew De Heus affirmed on 11 March 2022

[5] No reviewable decision dated 31 August 2021 has been filed with the Tribunal.

[6] No reviewable decision dated 2 June 2021 has been filed with the Tribunal.

[7] The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the correctness or otherwise of the land use code.

[8] The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review a 'decision' that has not been made.

[9] Local Government Act 1999 (SA) s 168(2) ('LGA').

[10] Ibid s 148,provides that the council rates may be assessed against any piece or section of land subject to separate occupation.

[11] VLA (n 2) s 17; LGA (Ibid) ss167 and 168.

[12] LGA (Ibid) s 168.

[13] SACAT file no 2020/SA002088 Shires v RCMB order made on 27/08/2020.

[14] But she did not pay the application feel until 9 September 2021, so it is technically out of time.

[15] De Heus affidavit, para 54-56; 60; 67-73; 78.

[16] De Heus affidavit, paras 91-95; 10.1 and email to Tribunal registry dated 28 January 2022.

[17] As opposed to appearing as a registered land agent to represent a landlord in the Housing and Civil list where she no longer has a right of appearance as she is no longer registered; Shires v Commissioner for Consumer Affairs [2021] SACAT 79.

[18] Tribunal orders dated 4 February 2022 and 3 March 2022; Shires v Commissioner v Consumer Affairs [2022] SACAT 15 at [6 and 7].

[19] Section 35 Book of Documents pp 8-9, 10-12, 12-13.

[20] Beverage Bottlers (SA) Ltd (in Liquidation) v Abode Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] SASC 272 [163].

[21] Hani & Boukhizam v Green & Green [2018] SACAT 28 at [16].

[22] This assumes the wording of s 49(4) SACAT Act will be interpreted widely.

[23] South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) s 57(3); South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulations 2015 (SA)reg 7.

[24] This meant that counsel did not have to attend to argue the matter in person and the respondent avoided the costs of that attendance.