The question before the Court of Appeal was whether the value of all the land to which Placer Dome was entitled was 60% or more of the value of all the property, other than certain excluded property, to which it was entitled. If this was found to be the case, Placer Dome would be a “listed land-holder” within the meaning of section 76ATI(2) of the Stamp Act 1921.
In the first instance, the State Administrative Tribunal upheld the Commissioner’s assessment of Placer Dome as a listed land-holder. However, the Court of Appeal found the Tribunal erred in accepting the Commissioner’s contentions and the valuations of Placer Dome’s land that had been undertaken in accordance with those contentions. The Court of Appeal also found that the Tribunal was not necessarily obliged to accept valuations presented by Placer Dome. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The Commissioner has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
Case
Placer Dome Inc-v-Commissioner of State Revenue [2017] WASCA 165
