ORDER
VCAT REFERENCE: L0090/2024
Planning and Environment List
PROCEEDING TYPE:	Review of a decision on the valuation of land (Valuation of Land Act 1960, s 22)	
APPLICANT:	CND Property Developments Pty Ltd	
RESPONDENT:	Valuer-General Victoria	

LAND:	26 Spencer Place  RICHMOND  VIC  3121	
HEARING TYPE:	No Hearing 	
ORDER MADE BY:	Justine Jacono, Senior Member	
ORDER DATE:	14 April 2025	
CITATION:	CND Property Developments Pty Ltd v Valuer-General Victoria (Land Valuation) [2025] VCAT 307
	
ORDERS

1.	Pursuant to s 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), application for review L0090/2024 is summarily dismissed because it is misconceived.  
 
Justine Jacono, Senior Member  

	

	

REASONS
Background
1.	On the 4 December 2024, CND Property Developments Pty Ltd, (applicant) lodged an application for a review of a decision under s 22 of the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (Vic) (VL Act).
2.	The application was for the review of a single valuation, the Site Value (SV) of the property located at 27a Abinger Street, Richmond at the relevant date of 1 January 2014. The application stated that as an objection had been lodged on the 26 August 2024, the decision under review was a deemed decision and that the SV had been apportioned in accordance with s 2(3) of the VL Act.
3.	The applicant provided the following reasons for its application:

4.	The documents accompanying the application form were as follows:
4.1.	letter to Westlink Consulting dated 26 April 2024;
4.2.	a rate notice for the period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 for 26 Spencer Place, Richmond for the relevant date of 1 January 2024;
4.3.	a second instalment rate notice for the period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 for 26 Spencer Place, Richmond for the relevant date of 1 January 2024; and
4.4.	an undated appraisal from Jellis Craig Real Estate. 
5.	The Tribunal issued an initiating order on 20 December 2024, listing the matter for a practice day hearing on 12 February 2025 to consider whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the application. The orders of 20 December 2024 amended the application to reflect the correct address of the subject property to 26 Spencer Place, Richmond (subject property).
6.	Valuer-General Victoria provided the required notices of decision pursuant to s 22(6) of the VL Act on 31 January 2025. The notices provided included:
6.1.	 an objection notice dated 22 February 2024, objecting to the Capital Improved Value (CIV) only; and

6.2.	a Notice of Recommendation dated 21 June 2024, relating to a supplementary rate notice issued on 24 December 2023. The original and recommended valuations related to the CIV and Net Annual Value (NAV) only, at the relevant date of 1 January 2023:

7.	No Notice of Confirmation was filed.
8.	At the practice day hearing on 12 February 2025, after hearing from the parties, the Tribunal made the following orders:

9.	The Tribunal made the following Remarks in the Tribunal’s orders dated 13 February 2025 following the practice day hearing on 12 February 2025.

10.	By consent from the parties, the time required for Valuer-General Victoria to provide the required further information was extended from 28 February 2025 to 21 March 2025.
11.	The Tribunal noted that the Valuer-General’s Notice of Confirmation dated 26 August 2024 was not filed with the Tribunal and required this to be filed. The Notice of Confirmation dated the 26 August 2024 was filed with the Tribunal on 1 April 2025; an extract follows:

12.	On 2 April 2025, the Tribunal required the further responses by the parties:
The Tribunal also requires by COB 4 April 2025:
1)	further clarity by each party on a letter dated 21 June 2024 addressed to the Applicant from Westlink Consulting that refers to '2023 Supplementary Valuation Objection - Notice of Disallowance', marked 'D' in the Applicant's submissions. The Tribunal requires a copy of the letter and associated notice to be filed and served. It is unclear whether a Notice of Disallowance was issued or whether the letter refers to an incorrect notice, and if so, what was the correct notice;
2)	each party must file and advise the Tribunal, if the party agrees for any question of law that may arise from the submissions to be decided by the Presiding Member; or if a party requires a Member who is an Australian Lawyer to determine any question of law (in accordance with Clause 98, schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic);
3)	if either party requires any additional time to respond, please advise the Tribunal.
13.	On the 2 April 2025, the applicant provided the following response:

14.	On 3 April 2025, the Tribunal again contacted the parties noting that the response refers to item 1 – Notice of Disallowance, however no attachment was provided.
15.	On 3 April 2025, the applicant filed a letter from Westlink Consulting, an extract is as follows:
.
16.	On 4 April 225, Valuer-General Victoria provided the following response:

Relevant Legislation
17.	The relevant sections of the VL Act are as follows:
16 	Who may object? 
(1)	A person aggrieved by a valuation of any land made or caused to be made by a valuation authority may lodge a written objection to that valuation, on any one or more of the grounds set out in section 17, with the authority that gave the notice of valuation.
(2)	An objection must—
(a)	contain the prescribed information (if any); and
(b)	give particulars of the bases of valuation to which objection is made; and
(c)	state the grounds on which the objection is based.
(3) 	An objection must not be disallowed merely because of a failure to comply with subsection (2).
(3A) In addition to the requirements of subsection (2), if—
(a)	a ground for the objection is that the value assigned is too high or too low; and
(b)	the value assigned is not less than the prescribed amount—
the objection must state the amount that the objector contends is the correct value.
(3B) 	An amount stated in an objection in accordance with subsection (3A) is not binding on the objector.…
(6)	Despite subsection (1), a person referred to in subsection (5) must give written notice of an objection to the person or body that issued the assessment of the rate or tax and to the valuation authority that caused the valuation to be made.
(6A)	… 

17 	Grounds for objection
The grounds for an objection are—
(a) 	that the value assigned is too high or too low;
(b) 	…
18	Time for lodging objection
An objection must be lodged—
(a) within 2 months after the notice of valuation is served; or
(b) in the case of a person referred to in section 16(5)—
(i) if a notice of assessment of the rate or tax was served on the person by a rating authority, within 2 months after the notice was served; or
(ii) if a notice of assessment of the rate or tax was not served on the person by a rating authority and the person is the occupier of the land, within 4 months after the date of issue specified on the notice; or
(c) in the case of a person referred to in section 16(6A) or (6AB)—within 2 months after receiving the notice of assessment of land tax, commercial and industrial property tax or windfall gains tax (as the case requires).
…
21 	Determination of objection
(1) 	An objection must be determined in accordance with section 20 and this section.
(2) 	...
(2A) 	A valuation authority with whom a valuation has been lodged or to whom an objection has been referred under subsection (2), must refer the objection to the valuer who made the valuation.
(2B) 	A valuer to whom an objection has been referred must provide the objector with a reasonable opportunity to discuss his or her objection with the valuer.
(3) 	Within 4 months after receiving the objection, the valuer must—
(a) 	if he or she considers that no adjustment in the valuation is justified—give the objector written notice of that decision; or
(b)	...
22	Application to VCAT for review
(1)	An objector who is dissatisfied with the decision of a valuer or the valuer-general on the objection may apply to VCAT for review of the decision.
(2)	If the valuer for a valuation authority has not given an objector notice of a decision on the objection or a copy of a recommendation under section 21(3)(b)(ii) within 4 months after the objection was lodged with the valuation authority, the valuer is deemed to have made a decision that no adjustment in the valuation is justified.
(3)	If the valuer-general has not given an objector notice of a decision under section 21(5) within 2 months after a copy of a recommendation was given to the objector under section 21(3)(b)(ii), the valuer-general is deemed to have made a decision disallowing the recommended adjustment.
	(4)	An application under this section must be made—
(a)	in the case of an application in respect 
of a deemed decision referred to in subsection (2)—within 9 months after the date on which the objection was lodged with the valuation authority;
(b)	in the case of an application in respect 
of a deemed decision referred to in subsection (3)—at any time after the end of the 2 month period referred to in that subsection;
(c)	in any other case—within 30 days after the date notice of the decision is given to the objector.
(5)	An applicant under this section must serve a copy of the application on the valuation authority.
(6)	The valuation authority must, within 1 month after being served with a copy of the application, forward to the principal registrar of VCAT the notice of objection, copies of any notices given under section 21 in connection with the objection and any information given or submissions lodged under section 20 in connection with the objection.
(7)	The principal registrar of VCAT must notify the valuer-general of an application under this section.
(8)	Despite subsection (2), the valuer for a valuation authority may give an objector notice of a decision on the objection or a copy of a recommendation under section 21(3)(b)(ii) more than 4 months after the objection was lodged with the valuation authority. 
(9)	Despite subsection (3), the valuer-general may give an objector notice of a decision under section 21(5) more than 2 months after a copy of a recommendation was given to the objector under section 21(3)(b)(ii).

Applicant’s Submissions
18.	The applicant attempted to lodge an application with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 17 July 2024. Due to the online form not recognising the property address at 26 Spencer Place, Richmond, the online form could not be submitted.
19.	The applicant followed up its application on 28 November 2024 and the applicant was advised to re-submit the application online with the closest address.
20.	On 4 December 2024, an application for a review of a decision of the valuation was submitted in relation to the SV only at the relevant date of 1 January 2014.
21.	The Applicant filed and served its submissions on 26 February 2025. The applicant’s submission provided the following summary of key timelines and the refence documents labelled A to H appended to its submissions:

22.	It is noted that the Notice of Objection appended to the Applicant’s submissions at Reference B is dated 15 February 2024 not 15 February 2023 as in the above summary. The Notice of Objection also reflects the objector’s objection to the CIV only:

23.	At reference C and D, both acknowledgements from Westlink and Yarra City Council were dated 23 February 2024 not 23 February 2023.
24.	On 26 March 2025, the applicant filed and served submissions in reply to the Valuer-General Victoria’s submissions.
25.	
The applicant contends through-out its submissions that 
‘The information presented below and attachments provided as evidence of my having attemped [sic] at all times to present relevant information to the Authoriteies [sic] in a correct and timely fashion’.
26.	Further, the applicant submits that the evidence that it has provided demonstrates:
The initial 'SUPPLEMENTARY VALUATION' dated 18th December 2023 was not received by us due to the the [sic] incorrect address being used. it was sent to 12A Francis street , Richmond incorrectly.
The VCAT website did not have accurate updated information on the altered address which caused significant delays tot e [sic] progression of the case.
I have been in continuous discussions with the VALUER GENERALS OFFICE and WESTLINK regarding this issue and any delays could not be fairly assiged [sic] to us.
I have incurred significant costs in relation to matters largely beyond my control.
I contend the respondents use [item 32[b] page 4 cited in the response should be used to progress or settle this matter based on merit and not based on technical points or 'slip-ups'
FLL v Secretary to the department of Justice [2012 VCAT 1876.]
Valuer—General Victoria Submissions
27.	On 21 March 2025, Valuer-General Victoria filed its submissions responsive to orders 2.4 and 2.5 of the Tribunal’s orders dated 13 February 2025 (VGV submissions).
28.	Valuer-General Victoria also filed the amended Further Information required in order 2.2 (of the Tribunal’s orders dated 13 February 2025) on 21 March 2025. The history of the objection was updated and corrected at paragraph 1.2:

29.	In paragraphs 4 to 14 in VGV submissions, the relevant facts available from the evidence are summarised that generally accord with the history of the objection.
30.	Valuer-General Victoria relied upon the decision Melbourne City Council v Port of Melbourne [2005] VSCA 72; (2005) 139 LGERA 318 (Port of Melbourne). The Court of Appeal considered sections 16 and 18 of the VLA. The Court of Appeal found that the right to object, if not exercised, ceases to exist. Nettle JA commented at [48] that his Honour could “see no reason to doubt that the time periods set by s.18 are absolute and incapable of extension by the Commissioner or the court”. 
31.	Valuer-General Victoria conclude at paragraph 24 of VGV submissions:
The Applicant failed to exercise his right to object to the SV in accordance with sections 16 and 18 of the VLA. As there is no power to extend the time for making an objection, the Applicant has no right to apply to VCAT for a review in accordance with section 22(4). 
32.	Valuer-General Victoria made submissions in respect to extending time in relation to the CIV only. Valuer-General Victoria submits that in this case it would face prejudice and detriment from an extension of time. 
33.	Valuer-General Victoria provided further submissions on the factors identified in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 3 FCR 344, and concluded that it would likely oppose any application for an extension in time.
Tribunal’s Determination
34.	The application was lodged at VCAT on 4 December 2024. 

35.	The application clearly states that the applicant seeks a review of the SV:

36.	The applicant confirmed at the practice day hearing that it sought to review the SV only of the subject property at the relevant date of 1 January 2023. This is reflected in the Remarks in the Tribunal’s orders dated 13 February 2025 at paragraph 3.
37.	The applicant’s objection dated 22 February 2024 was for the CIV only.
38.	The Notice of Recommendation dated 21 June 2024 and Notice of Confirmation dated 26 August 2024 both recommended and confirmed adjustments to the CIV and NAV. The SV was not included.
39.	The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant sought to make an online application on 17 July 2024. However due to an issue with VCAT’s online portal not recognising the property address of 26 Spencer Place, Richmond, this was not able to be done. Ultimately, an online form was not successfully submitted until 4 December 2024.
40.	The applicant’s rights for a review of a decision stem from the Notice of Confirmation dated 26 August 2024. Even if the applicant had submitted an application to review a decision within 30 days of the Notice of Confirmation; no review rights existed in respect to the SV.
41.	The VL Act does not provide the decision maker at first instance, an opportunity to extend time to accept an objection or retrospectively amend objections as in this case would be required, to include the SV.
42.	The valuer has not considered the SV at all, nor has the valuer considered whether a recommended adjustment to the SV would have been provided for consideration by the Valuer-General Victoria. 
43.	There was no objection to the SV in the applicant’s objection on the 22 February 2024. Consequently, there was no decision made in respect to the SV in the Notice of Recommendation or Notice of Confirmation by Valuer-General Victoria. Therefore there is no right of review pursuant to s 22 of the VL Act and no application before the Tribunal. It follows that the Tribunal has no ability to exercise any discretion.
44.	There are several Tribunal’s decisions including Liebler v Knox CC [2021] VCAT 1356 (Liebler) where the Tribunal has considered the role of the objection process and basis of the objection that proceeds an application for review of a decision to the Tribunal. In Liebler, at paragraphs 80 to 83 the Tribunal said:
The VL Act does not provide the decision maker at first instance an opportunity to extend time to accept objections or extend time to determine objections.
The objection process under the VL Act is established to ensure that only disputes of substance are brought to the Tribunal for determination. The purpose of the objection process is to provide the objector with the ability to specify the grounds of the objection, the reasons for the objection and importantly, the opportunity to discuss the concerns with the valuer. This may lead to the resolution of the objection, as the valuer has the ability to recommend a change to the valuation for consideration by the Valuer-General (Victoria). Resolution can also be achieved through providing the objector with an explanation and therefore better understanding of the valuation and statutory framework.
The decision of the COA in Melbourne City Council is binding on this Tribunal and it clearly stands for the proposition that once a person fails to exercise the right of objection with the relevant authority provided for under the relevant legislation, the right to object ceases to exist. Ostensibly this means that the time limits for lodging an objection are absolute and incapable of extension.
This is harmonious with the purpose of the objection process and the lack of a statutory basis for extending time to receive objections. It follows that section 126(2)(b) of the VCAT Act cannot be used to waive compliance with Part III of the VL Act as the time limit is absolute and incapable of extension.
45.	In Shannon Estate Pty Ltd v Valuer-General Victoria (Land Valuation) [2024] VCAT 939 at paragraph 21 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.
46.	The applicant did not object to the SV in its original objection and therefore that right ceases to exist and cannot be remedied or rectified by an extension of time.
Conclusion
47.	The application is summarily dismissed because it is misconceived.

Justine Jacono, Senior Member