26 November 2025

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.

The Tribunal found that the subject property was correctly attributed ‘Commercial’ land use for the purposes of the Emergency Services Funding Act 1998 (the “Act”), for reasons including:

• Section 8(1) of the Act lists the prescribed five land use categories for the purposes of determining the applicable land use factor and the emergency services levy.
• Objections and applications for review under the Act do not directly challenge the Land Use Code assigned by the Valuer-General, but concern only the attribution of land use under the Act.
• Further, this review concerned only the land use attribution for the subject property, not the use of the combined facility also occupying adjacent land (land which was separately owned and assessed).
• The consideration of predominant use is a practical, functional assessment based on the actual ‘use’. This is determined on the facts at the relevant time. What a person intendsthe premises to be used for is of no importance. What signs or descriptors of the property say about its use is of little importance. All that is important is what the land is actually used for at the relevant time, with the predominant use being the function that imparts a character to the parcel as a whole.
• As at 1 July 2024, the subject property was used for waiting rooms, consulting rooms, outpatient minor treatment, carpark, sterilisation, office, kitchen, toilet, and phototherapy.
• The tasks and functions undertaken at the subject property were commercial in character that were related to the provision of medical services. Given the limited scope of the definitions under section 8(1) of the Act, the most appropriate classification of the predominant land use of the property on 1 July 2024 is ‘Commercial’ under the Act and ‘Commercial – Other’ under the Local Government (General) Regulations 2013.

EMERGENCY SERVICES LEVY – Land use

Decision not published in this case.

9 November 2023

The Tribunal dismissed the application for review and dismissed the applicant’s application for costs.

The applicant initially sought a review of a decision made by RevenueSA in relation to the Emergency Services Levy. During proceedings, further information submitted by the applicant’s representatives resulted in RevenueSA reviewing its original decision in the applicant’s favour.

The applicant refused to withdraw his review application, and submitted an application for costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s application for review on the basis it no longer had any utility and dismissed the applicant’s application for costs for the following reasons:

• The Tribunal rebuked the applicant’s assertion that RevenueSA did not act as a model litigant in reconsidering its decision.
• There is no provision in the Emergency Services Funding Act 1998 empowering the Tribunal to award costs of proceeding taken under that Act.
• RevenueSA adhered to the objectives of section 8 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2016 (the SACAT Act) in conducting itself in a manner that avoided the Tribunal and the applicant from wasting resources.
• There is no proper basis to depart from the default position under the SACAT Act that each party bears their own cost.
• The Tribunal refused to admit into evidence a telephone recording made by the applicant of his communication with RevenueSA because of its questionable probative value.
• The applicant’s age and disability were not relevant to his entitlement to costs under the SACAT Act.
• The role of the Tribunal is to conduct a merits review and not to make findings in the nature of a declaration in respect of decisions which are no longer operational.

SACAT – Application for Costs

Nash v Revenue SA [2023] SACAT 90