Land Valuation Decisions

Costs 

Section 109 of the Victorian Civil and Administration Act 1998 (Vic), that relates to the power to award costs does not apply to a proceeding under the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic).

Equity Trustees Limited v Valuer – General Victoria (Land Valuation) [2025] VCAT 50

As highlighted by Deputy President Macnamara in Decleah Investments Pty Ltd v Cardinia Shire Council (Land Valuation) [2011] VCAT 1292 at paragraphs 6 and 7:

Since the Section 74 discretion is open it must be exercised against the background of the costs regime laid down by Section 26 and that regime is significantly different from the one which generally applies in the Tribunal’. 

In Court a party withdrawing a proceeding invariably has to pay the costs of the other party. The reason is because if the matter went on and the withdrawing party lost, costs would follow the event and the party would then certainly have to pay the costs. Where there is a possibility that no costs order might have been made even if the matter had gone to a contested hearing, the context in VCAT is somewhat different. On the other hand here in the Land Valuation List we do not have a presumption that costs lie where they fall and therefore the situation is less different from the Court situation here than it is elsewhere in VCAT.

The Tribunal may award costs against an applicant or respondent. 
In Equity Trustees Limited v Valuer – General Victoria, costs were awarded against the applicant after it sought leave to withdraw its application on the same day that expert evidence was required to be filed. The Tribunal said:

…Whilst it may be that the applicant itself was unaware that there is no presumption that each party is to bear their own costs in land valuation matters, even leaving aside the fact that the applicant was represented, ignorance is not a defence. The applicant is responsible for its own actions and those actions may have consequences.

Further the Tribunal found unreasonable conduct by the applicant:

… the applicant acted unreasonably in withdrawing its application on the same day that the expert reports were required to be filed (in accordance with the Tribunal order dated 10 July 2024). The valuation authority could not have avoided the engagement of an expert when the applicant advised that it no longer wished to proceed with the application, on the same date the expert reports were due. I find the action of the applicant in this regard to be unreasonable, particularly in circumstances where the applicant gave no prior indication to the valuation authority.

Doncaster Tower Pty Ltd v Valuer-General Victoria (Land Valuation) [2024] VCAT 975

In Doncaster Tower Pty Ltd v Valuer-General Victoria, the Tribunal awarded costs in favour of the applicant. In awarding costs against the respondent, the Tribunal said:
 

…The Tribunal considers that following the commencement of the application, the Valuation Authority has not acted in an open manner, has acted unreasonably and has failed to give adequate information when required to do so. As a consequence of these actions, the Applicant has incurred costs that ought to be paid by the Valuation Authority.

The Tribunal also made the following comments relating to costs:
 

Section 26 of the VL Act gives the Tribunal a wide discretion as to costs and there is no restriction as to when a costs order can be made…..

The Tribunal considers that an award for costs can be made at any time during a proceeding and/or at the resolution or determination of a proceeding.

In relation to the importance of compliance with Tribunal Orders, the Tribunal said:

Once the Tribunal made a determination and issued the Orders, the Orders were required to be fully complied with. The word ‘fully’ should not be required to be stated, it is inherent in the issuing of an Order.

It is irrelevant whether or not the Valuation Authority considered the Applicant needed the information to prepare for its case at that juncture. The Tribunal made a ruling that the information was required and issued Orders accordingly.

It is equally irrelevant whether or not the Valuation Authority considered the Applicant’s case would not be prejudiced by the further information yet to be provided. It is not up to either party to make an assessment on the requirement of information for the other party’s case. Nor is it up to a party to make an assessment as to whether the provision of partial information should be sufficient for the Tribunal. It is up to the Tribunal to determine what information is required by when; and issue the relevant Orders accordingly. The parties must comply with the Orders.

Ammending an application

Shannon Estate Pty Ltd v Valuer - General Victoria (Land Valuation) [2024] VCAT 939
 

In Shannon Estate Pty Ltd v Valuer - General Victoria, the applicant wanted to amend its application to include a valuation that had not been previously objected to.

The Tribunal said,
 

…The application for review of a decision to the Tribunal does not present a new opportunity to seek review of, in this case, valuations that were not part of the Valuer’s consideration in the determination of the objection.

The Tribunal therefore agrees with the Valuation Authority that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the SV, CIV or NAV at the relevant date and that the application for review is confined to the review of the AVPCC.

Extension of Time

Siamsiaras v Maribyrnong CC (Land Valuation) [2024] VCAT 896

In Siamsiaras v Maribyrnong CC, the applicant’s request for an extension of time was refused and the application struck out.

The Tribunal said,

…Having considered the Applicant’s actions and explanation for the delay, fairness and equity to both parties, prejudice and the merits of the substantive application; the Applicant’s request for an extension of time to commence the proceeding is refused. I do not consider that the Applicant has provided an adequate explanation for the lengthy delay of in excess of 15 months in bringing the proceeding to VCAT.

The Tribunal referred to the following comments made by Deputy President Dwyer in Decleah Investments Pty Ltd v Cardinia Shire Council [2009] VCAT 1852: 

[t]ime limits exist in legislation for a reason, and are expected to be observed....Without time limits, the system would degenerate into one lacking in certainty, and would become highly dependent upon discretion’. However, the Tribunal does not consider that s 126(4) prohibits the Tribunal in exercising its discretion to consider the relevant facts and circumstances in this case and making a determination accordingly.