1. This property was [r]educed
2. Very inferior on many attributes and size

1. Reduced in price from $259,000 sold for $170,000
2. Higher land[,] no flooding in [w]inter

1. This sale isn't in my area
2. Inferior on many attributes and size

1. [M]y block has no services either
2. [T]his property has no ROC

1. I don't have [r]oad [f]rontage[,] this property does
2. Quite different attributes from subjects as written [sic]
3. Attributes have considerable market appeal
4. Russell Dodd [the respondent's expert] says that this block is similar to my block
5. This is the only sale that Russell Dodd said that is similar
6. [N]ot like my block

1. [B]igger than my block
2. [G]ood access, [m]ine is very bad

1. [L]ight soil. Mine is clay
2. Setting not as attractive. Says who? Someone did find it attractive as it [was] sold
3. [Y]ou can get Mobile Service at this block. I can[']t at mine
4. [N]ot like my block

Sale number 7

This block was on sale for as long as mine, we know the people that bought this block and it was sold in 2006 for [$]99,000

Sale number 8

1. This block was [r]educed
2. Huge block[,] 46.2155[.] Mine 23.9000

46 Importantly, the applicant does not appear to challenge any of the respondent's sales data or information. Then follows some general observations by the applicant on methodology, as follows:

What aspects does [c]onsiderable market appeal say to you[?] Everyone is different. What you say is a good attributes may not be for that person [sic].

What book of attributes have you got to subject this evidence on [sic] [.] Attributes = $? That's so wrong.

I have been around to all of the [s]ales [e]vidence blocks in question, and you can get [m]obile service at every one.

All [of] the elevated blocks do not get flooded in the [w]inter. Like mine [sic].

Most of the blocks in mention [sic] have no easement [ROC]. Like mine [sic]. Majority have road frontages.

47 In her conclusion, the applicant again raises matters that have little, if anything, to do with the issue at hand, saying (emphasis added):

I know that I won't get any satisfaction out of this objection.

I have been told by so many people.

I just think that it is so unfair that you can charge people to pay more rates but yet have no changes in the area not even a sealed road or an easement [access] upgrade[.] Yet we all still pay, pay, and pay.

48 Of course, as has already been mentioned, neither the respondent nor this Tribunal actually 'charge people to pay more rates'.

49 The Valuer General's response to the applicant's material, so far as it was considered to be relevant, was as follows:

To further address issues indirectly raised concerning the co­ordination of unimproved values please find attached two maps - The first map focuses on the area surrounding the applicant's Lot 909 ... with the respective unimproved values provided for the following rating years:

2008 (Unimproved value $182,000 - subject of appeal [review])

The second map shows the same content but relating to the comparable sales already used as evidence.

The respondent supplies this information:

Firstly, to emphasize that the adjoining lots of similar size within the vicinity experienced similar increases in unimproved values between the 2007/08 and the 2008/09 shire rating year.

[This is in] response to the applicant's comment [in a submission to the Tribunal dated 30 September 2009, and received on 15 October 2009] - ' I[']m yet to see [e]vidence of any other Rate Payer that has paid an increase of [$800,000] in my area.'; and

Secondly, to highlight the fact that the co­ordination issues raised concerning Lot 780 have been addressed [as previously explained and as is set above in these reasons].

50 The Valuer General goes on briefly to respond to an issue regarding 'unsubstantiated rates payable on an unestablished lot in Roleystone'. I agree that this issue is irrelevant to this review.

51 It is in the submission received on 15 October 2009, referred to immediately above, that the applicant claims that she is being 'discriminated' against because, as she says:

It seems that I have to pay more money for rates due to [the] sales of land in my area. I am being penalized for the sale of land in my area.

52 The applicant did not seek leave to make any further submissions in response to this responsive material from the Valuer General. In any event, the new material supplied tends to support the respondent's case concerning the coordination of unimproved values of properties (including neighbouring properties) in the vicinity of the subject land. Therefore, far from being discriminated against, the applicant is clearly not alone as regards an increase at the relevant time of unimproved values in the locality.

53 Notwithstanding the applicant's own informal survey or analysis and her related comments in response, it is clear that the respondent's valuers conducted a careful comparative survey noting material factors that might explain both the sales evidence and the relationship of that data to the subject land. They are engaged upon the task laid down by law, namely that of forming an expert opinion on the 'postulated ... hypothetical prudent purchaser on the date for valuation': Lake Karrinyup Country Club Inc v Valuer-General (unreported, WASC, Library No. 960515, 13 September 1996), cited in Rowles at [21].

54 The applicant does not, it seems, dispute any of the basic data, only the interpretation or relevance of it. (Indeed, at one point, she appears to acknowledge that land values have indeed gone up.) However, her interpretations are, with respect, largely subjective, anecdotal, unstructured and informal and do not seriously engage, even as a non­expert, with the clear pattern that emerges from the data concerning the value of land in her vicinity influenced by market forces (that is, actual or imputed sales evidence).

55 It is possible that this is because the applicant is largely focused instead, it seems, upon the perceived injustices that she thinks flow from the alleged overvaluing of her land as it relates to the level of services that the State provides to her and that she is obliged to contribute to, based upon that valuation. These matters are, as has been mentioned, essentially irrelevant to the issue before the Tribunal.

56 At any rate, it is clear that she does not appreciate or understand the 'valuer's art', nor does she ultimately accept what is, with respect, plainly obvious from the data itself (even to a reasonably intelligent, as the applicant is, non­expert): taken as a discrete issue, an unimproved value of not less than $182,000, at the relevant time, seems reasonably justified.

57 When there is added to this 'raw' data (which material is, as I have emphasised, not disputed) the unrebutted professional expert opinion of the respondent's expert witnesses, the result of the review is inevitable: the applicant's review must be dismissed.

58 The comments that I made in Rowles, at [46] ­ [47], are equally applicable here:

... The applicant declined to call any expert evidence to rebut the valuer's opinion. The Tribunal has carefully reviewed and considered [the applicant's] arguments, but it is not persuaded by them. There is an abundance of evidence to support a finding by the Tribunal that not only was a relevant, standard process of valuation followed, but that there existed sufficient valuation data upon which an expert opinion could be expressed.

The Tribunal finds that the applicant has not made out any case to impugn either the process of valuation or assumptions and data underlying it. Consequently, the expert evidence stands in support of the respondent's case. The decision under review ... is therefore affirmed.

59 Speaking generally, an unsuccessful applicant in this Tribunal appearing as a citizen seeking an independent review in good faith of a decision of a government agency affecting them will be immune from a costs order made against them. However, costs still remain a matter of discretion for the Tribunal.

60 This review illustrates the difficulty where an applicant, even after both 'advice' and a full explanation of the decision, persists in refusing to engage in a meaningful way (including furnishing expert advice or its equivalent) with respect to the precise issue at hand (here, the hypothetical value of land in a certain assumed state at a fixed date), and engages instead largely in the agitation of issues patently outside of the control of either the agency or the Tribunal. It is these secondary matters which particularly tend to distinguish Ms Tonkin from, say, the unsuccessful applicants in Wines and Rowles.

61 As arguably occurred here, the cost to the taxpayer in such circumstances will be considerable, and seems both disproportionate and unjustified, having regard to the applicant's real concerns. Moreover, attention to other, perhaps more deserving cases, will be postponed unnecessarily while the review takes place.

62 I would thus wish to reserve for future cases whether the question of costs in such circumstances ought to be visited upon such an applicant.

63 For the reasons given above, the Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that this and the preceding [63] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________