Bignell v Department of Natural Resources and Mines
[2003] QLC 54
•1 August 2003
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Bignell v Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2003] QLC 0054 PARTIES: Boyd Beric Bignell
(applicant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
(respondent)FILE NOS: V2002/0042; V2002/0043; AV2002/0391 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Appeals against unimproved valuations - Shire of Paroo - Valuation of Land Act 1944 DELIVERED ON: 1 August 2003 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Cunnamulla MEMBER Mr RE Wenck ORDERS: 1. Appeal V2002/0043
This appeal is struck out for want of jurisdiction.2. Appeal V2992/0042
This appeal is disallowed and the chief executive's unimproved valuation of $305,000 as at 1 October 1998 is affirmed.
3. Appeal AV2002/0391
This appeal is allowed. The chief executive's valuation is set aside and the unimproved value as at 1 October 2001 determined in the amount of Three Hundred and Sixty-six Thousand Dollars ($366,000).
CATCHWORDS: Statutory Valuation - Unimproved value - Valuation of Land Act 1944
Valuation - Sales evidence - Direct comparison - Unimproved value of differing land classifications - Check methodology transparency - Effect of Vegetation Management Act 1999
Carrying Capacity - Consistency of estimates - Development potential - Effects of legislation - Effects of degradation - Effects of kangaroo plague
Development Potential - Effect of Vegetation Management Act 1999 - Market value identification
APPEARANCES: Mr BB Bignell on his own behalf
Mr K Fisher, Crown Law, for the respondent
As at 1 October 1998 the chief executive had issued a valuation for properties known as "Widgeegoara" and "Colley's Well" located about 90 km south-east of Cunnamulla and owned by Mr Bignell. An earlier appeal had been lodged against that valuation. When that matter came on for hearing in the Land Court, evidence was led by the chief executive's valuer for a lower valuation, in the amount of $233,000. The appeal was allowed and the unimproved value of those two blocks was determined in that amount. "Widgeegoara" was severed from "Colley's Well", by two properties, one of which, "Colaine", adjoined "Widgeegoara" to the east. Whilst run as part of the aggregation, "Colaine" was required to be separately valued pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (VLA). It was owned at that time by Mr Boyd's mother. The separate valuation of "Colaine" as at 1 October 1998 was, after adjustment, in the amount of $78,000.
Mr Bignell subsequently acquired "Colaine" and both "Widgeegoara" and "Colaine" were resurveyed as one lot. The description of "Willacora/Colaine" and "Colley's Well" containing 29,540 ha is now:
Lot 5 SP126463;GHFL214266, Parish of Widgeegoara; and
Lot 6 NB10:GHFL15/1477, Parish of Macclesfield.
A new valuation as at 1 October 1998, then issued for the aggregation, first in the amount of $320,000. However the valuer identified an error in that valuation and an amended valuation was issued in the amount of $305,000. It is not clear how the objection process was handled but eventually appeals were lodged against both valuations. The valuation of $320,000, having been amended, has no force but for administrative reasons the appeal against that amount (V2002/0043) needs to be struck out, for want of jurisdiction. The owner's rights are protected by the valid appeal (V2002/0042) against the valuation of $305,000 as at 1 October 1998.
The remaining appeal (AV2002/0391) is against the chief executive's unimproved valuation of the aggregated three original lots as at 1 October 2001, in the amount of $380,000.
There were 12 grounds of appeal of a wide and general nature in each of these matters. The thrust of the appeals is identified as follows:
·Although an appeal against the valuation of "Colaine" had been withdrawn when, consistently with Land Court decisions on representative cases the valuation as at 1 October 1998 had been reduced to $78,000 ($11.15/ha), Mr Bignell submitted that the valuation should have been $73,500 ($10.50/ha) based on a relativity argument.
·It followed, in Mr Bignell's opinion, that the valuation of the three blocks as at 1 October 1998 had commenced at too high a base, before allowances for size and severance.
·As the valuation as at 1 October 2001 had resulted from a factorised increase of 25% applied throughout the Warrego Floodplain Sub Market Area (SMA), in which the subject blocks are located, if the 1998 valuation was too high, it followed that the 2001 valuation was also too high.
·The most comparable sales evidence did not support any increase over the 1998 valuation.
·The chief executive's estimate of carrying capacity was excessive in comparison with the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) "Safe Carrying Capacity Assessment", for the aggregation.
·The chief executive's carrying capacity estimate and the unimproved valuations do not give proper consideration to the effects of the Vegetation Management Act 1999, particularly with regard to development of the gidyea country.
·The unimproved valuations should reflect the losses associated with the destruction of pasture by kangaroos and the consequent losses associated with the early impact of the recent drought.
Valuation of "Colaine" as at 1 October 1998
In the Land Court determination of the unimproved value of "Widgeegoara" and "Colley's Well" as at 1 October 1998 it had been recorded that the chief executive's valuer had accepted that, "if 'Colley's Well' was required to be valued as a separate parcel an overall value of $9 per hectare would probably be reasonable ...". That would have produced a valuation of about $73,000 for "Colley's Well". Mr Bignell reasoned that if the valuation of "Widgeegoara" and "Colley's Well" in amalgamation was accepted as being $233,000 then by deduction the separate valuation of "Widgeegoara" would be $160,000 ($233,000–$73,000) or $11.07/ha. "Colaine" was in Mr Bignell's opinion inferior to "Widgeegoara" and it followed that the valuation of $78,000 ($11.15/ha) although at the time accepted was still too high. In his opinion, on relativity grounds the valuation should have been $10.50/ha. Alternatively if the valuation of "Widgeegoara" and "Colley's Well" was added to the applied valuation of "Colaine" ($78,000) giving a total of $311,000, then with a 5% allowance for severance and additional size, a valuation of $295,450 would have resulted. Mr Bignell's estimate in the notice of appeal had been $292,000 as at 1 October 1998.
Mr Bignell's reasoning is flawed with regard to the unimproved value which would have been applied to the "Widgeegoara" block had it been valued separately. In the Land Court decision relative to the 1 October 1998 valuation, Mr Bignell had clearly accepted that an apportioned valuation of $11.52/ha for "Widgeegoara" as suggested by the chief executive's valuer at that time (Mr McManus) was acceptable. It was the valuation of "Colley's Well" which he had disputed, on relativity grounds, and his suggestion of $9/ha had been accepted as "probably" reasonable by Mr McManus. In the Land Court decision was the following comment -
"It can be seen that if Mr Bignell's approach was adopted his estimates of the value of the separate blocks would total in rounded figures $239,500".
The chief executive's valuation of the blocks in amalgamation, $233,000 had been adopted by the Court on the basis than an allowance "in the range of 2.5%" should be made for the fact that the blocks were not contiguous, being severed by two other blocks, "Colaine" and land identified in these appeals as being part of "Warambah".
The contention then that the apportioned value of "Widgeegoara" "had to be" $11.07/ha as a separate block and that "Colaine" should be, on relativity grounds, $10.50/ha is not accepted. However, on Mr Bignell's evidence in this matter, a separate valuation of $11.15/ha for "Colaine" might still have been successfully argued as being high on a direct comparison with "Widgeegoara". More will be said of that later.
Chief Executive's Valuation as at 1 October 1998
Mr GG Naish, registered valuer employed by the chief executive, took responsibility for both valuations appealed against. It was his oral evidence that having become aware of the basis for the 1998 Land Court determination for "Widgeegoara" and "Colley's Well" his approach to the valuation of the further amalgamation had been to apportion values to the three individual blocks then to make an allowance for the increased size and the severance which still remained. His separate valuations were not disclosed nor was the precise allowance for "size and severance" although there was reference in a question in examination-in-chief to an allowance of 5% having been made.
I think in fairness, based on the actual figures as discussed in the Land Court decision and the 1998 valuation of "Colaine", the precise total of separate valuations would be $317,500 ("Widgeegoara" $166,500, "Colley's Well" $73,000 then "Colaine" $78,000). On that total figure the actual valuation of $305,000 would represent allowances in the order of 4%. The valuation appealed against will be discussed further in my findings.
Sales Evidence - 1 October 2001
Mr Naish had relied on the sales of the properties "Yerinan", "Warambah", "Cleland" and "Randwick Downs" all within the locality which had been historically identified by the chief executive as the Warrego Floodplain SMA. "Warambah" and "Cleland" were described by Mr Naish as being on the fringes of the eastern and northern sections of the SMA, respectively.
In Mr Bignell's opinion, although "Warambah" adjoined and severed the subject blocks, its mix of country was different and not comparable. In his opinion the most comparable of the sale properties was "Yerinan". He had concluded as had the purchasers (AJ & JA O'Brien) and other appellant owners, that, when compared with the earlier sale of "Willacora/Coona", one of the basic sale properties used in the representative cases before the Land Court for the 1998 valuation, the sale of "Yerinan" when properly analysed, showed no increase in value between 1998 and 2001.
Mr and Mrs O'Brien were appellants against unimproved valuations of "Yerinan" as at 1 October 2001. In those appeals I found that the circumstances surrounding the sale of the property "were such that any unimproved value analysis would be sufficiently clouded as to be an unreliable basis for valuation purposes".
Brief details including Mr Naish's description of the remaining sale properties are as follows:
1."Warambah" - 32,827 ha - sold 24.8.2000 - $1,404,000 ($42.77/ha) - analysed unimproved value $385,569 ($11.75/ha) - applied unimproved value $385,000 ($11.73/ha) - carrying capacity 1DSE to 2.5 ha - nature of land - (5%) open brown soil Mitchell grass plain - (28%) watercourse, brigalow, gidyea, coolibah, grey brown soil (not gilgaied) open to thick brigalow, coolibah, box and watercourses - (40%) gidyea, brigalow, box on red brown soils - (28%) sandy to sandhills with red soil mulga and box - located on the fringe of the eastern section of the Warrego Floodplain, merging into mulga lands. Woody weed problem in red sandy country - located between subject "Widgeegoara" and "Colaine" and "Colley's Well". "Overall: In comparison to the subject, this property comprises similar access and location to a service centre. It comprises of inferior country. It is similar in area to the subject. It is not severed like the subject property. Overall, on a per hectare basis, it is inferior ..."
2."Cleland" - 32,590 ha - sold 19.6.2001 - $1,090,611 ($33.46/ha) - analysed unimproved value $308,866 ($9.48/ha) - applied unimproved value said to have been $300,000 ($8.62/ha) (sic) - ($9.20/ha) - carrying capacity 1DSE to 2.8 ha - nature of country classified as - (15%) open Mitchell grass plain, coolibah, box, gidyea - (11%) broken coolibah and gidyea - (5%) box, coolibah flats and claypans - (40%) mulga/box - (26%) sandridges running into box/gidyea and ironwood - (4%) Spinifex - located on the northern section of the Warrego Floodplain, merging into mulga lands - woody weed problem in red sandy country. "Overall: In comparison to the subject, this property comprises of superior location and access, with inferior country type. The sale is similar in area than the subject. It is not severed like the subject. Overall, on a per hectare basis, the sale is inferior to the subject."
(It is observed that Mr Naish described the sale as bordering "part of the subject on the eastern boundary". That is clearly an error.)
3."Randwick Downs" - 19,560 ha - sold 16.6.2000 - $800,000 ($40.90/ha) - analysed unimproved value $237,007 ($12.12/ha) - applied unimproved value $232,500 ($11.89/ha) - carrying capacity 1DSE to 2.6 ha - country described as (52%) brown soil flooded coolibah, lignum, brigalow, some scalded Mitchell grass - (38%) red soil gidyea scattered to thick with wilga, dogwood, sandalwood, brigalow - (10%) sandhills, cypress pine, wilga, mulga, ironwood, leopardwood - woody weed problem in red sandy county. "Overall: In comparison to the subject, this property comprises of inferior location and access, with inferior country type. The sale is larger in area than the subject. The sale is not severed like the subject Overall, on a per hectare basis, the sale is inferior to the subject."
I accept Mr Naish's evidence that the market evidence as analysed, indicates that in the period between 1998 and 2001, the unimproved value of the sale properties had increased above the values applied, after the Court's findings, as at 1 October 1998.
In the "Yerinan" (O'Brien) appeals, the following comment was made in the decision:
"After hearing Mr Naish's evidence as to the review which had taken place to the original analysis of the 'Yerinan' sale and bearing in mind that valuation is not an exact science, it would be optimistic for the respondent to expect that a close examination of each component of the analysis of any highly improved sale would not reveal some areas where review could be argued as warranted. It is for that reason that some caution needs to be exercised in the application of sales evidence. It is observed that in the sales of 'Warambah', 'Cleland' and 'Randwick Downs' the analysed unimproved values were near fully applied (99.8%, 97.4% and 98.1%) when the added value applied to the improvements were assessed at $1,018,431 (72.53% of the sale price), $781,745 (71.67%) and $562,993 (70.37%) respectively. Those figures suggest that little margin was allowed for any possible review of the sales analyses ... In the subject matters I have formed the view that a small reduction in the individual lot valuations is warranted. The basis for a 25% increase is not only weakened by the removal of the sale of the subject property from consideration, but allows no meaningful benefit of doubt when the purpose of the valuations is for revenue gathering."
For consistency, based on my approach to the sales evidence analyses in the "Yerinan" and other appeals, the valuation of the subject property as at 1 October 2001 is entitled to a small reduction before consideration of matters individual to this land. Mr Naish's valuation of $380,000 equated $12.86/ha and that represented the rounded 25% increase over the $305,000 applied as at 1 October 1998.
Nature of Land
In his report Mr Naish classified the land as follows:
11,022 ha(37%) Comprises open chocolate Mitchell grass plain with scattered gidyea and whitewood
1,266 ha(4%) Comprises open grey coolibah
8,360 ha (28%) Comprises red soil gidyea, strips and clumps ridges, cypress pine with areas of flat gidyea plain
400 ha (1%) Comprises open sandy box and mulga
8,532 ha(29%) Comprises red sandy to sandhill
He included satellite imagery and WARLUS land system mapping in his report, together with various photographs taken at identified locations, during his inspection.
Mr Bignell in his relativity argument was relying not only on his direct knowledge of the land but also satellite imagery and evidence which had been given in the previous Land Court hearing. He was somewhat critical of the relatively short time which Mr Naish had spent on his inspection and regretted that he had not been able to accompany him particularly into the areas degraded by woody weed infestation. Mr Naish's response was that he had relied on the technical information available to him and provided in his report, together with notes from past inspections by other officers. In the circumstances he had considered his inspection to be adequate and sufficient to ground truth the information available. He accepted that he had not specifically mentioned the woody weed problem other than for a reference in photographs as to its existence in the red sandy country. However he was well aware of the woody weed district problem and its existence both on the subject property and the sale properties.
Carrying Capacity
Mr Bignell contended that the chief executive's estimate of carrying capacity (1DSE to 2.5 ha) was excessive and influenced too heavily by stock numbers carried in good seasons. He felt that reliance should be placed on the DPI estimates of safe carrying capacity. He tendered the report conducted by the DPI in 1998 over the whole aggregation. The report described a safe carrying capacity as a strategic estimate of stock numbers over the long term (20 to 30 years) and not to be confused with safe stocking rates which are tactical (seasonal to annual) management decisions based on the seasonal or annual forage production. The number of livestock was based, inter alia, on the estimated tree and shrub cover of the different land systems (WARLUS land system mapping) at the time of the assessment. Estimates were detailed for each paddock and the overall result equated 1DSE to 2.7 ha over a total area of 30,496 ha which included a Stock Route and Reserve. Mr Bignell interpreted the report as showing that on the separate holdings the estimates were 1DSE to 2.6 ha on "Widgeegoara", 1DSE to 2.8 ha on "Colaine" and 1DSE to 3.1 ha on "Colley's Well". However, with the benefit of the full report having been tendered, it seems that Mr Bignell may have misread the estimate for the "Widgeegoara" block. On "Widgeegoara" the DPI estimate over a total area of 15,461 ha including the Stock Route and Reserve was 6,272 sheep or 1DSE to less than 2.5 ha. It seems that the DPI estimate quoted by Mr Bignell in both this and the earlier hearing, for "Widgeegoara" of 1DSE to 2.6 ha (from p.3 of the DPI report - "Property Assessment") in fact included the "Colaine" block. It is also observed from the tendered report that Mr Bignell had advised the DPI that his estimate of the carrying capacity overall had been 1DSE to 2.52 ha.
Mr Naish said that he had adopted 1DSE to 2.5 ha overall for comparison purposes based on historical estimates of carrying capacity as contained in the relevant files. He had taken that approach consistently throughout the Warrego Floodplain SMA. He was aware that the DPI safe carrying capacity estimates on the properties where such studies had been conducted, were more conservative than the historical chief executive estimates. He saw one reason for that being that the DPI estimates while based on the actual land classifications with the country as it existed when inspected, did not take into consideration as did the departmental estimates, the potential for increased stock numbers through development of suitable areas of vegetation. In any event it would not have been possible to use any consistent approach based on DPI figures as not every district property owner had participated in the DPI project.
Kangaroo Plague
Mr Bignell's evidence was that in a recent 12-month period professional shooters had harvested 10,000 of the larger commercial kangaroos on the holding "with no visible impact on numbers" which he estimated to be up to 40,000 at any time during the peak period. He has little doubt that the plague numbers "had plunged the country into drought prematurely" with the kangaroos being in direct grazing competition with the sheep. Had it not been for the plague, hand feeding of stock might have been delayed for up to six months. He had never found it necessary to hand feed his stock in the past, even in 1982, when the rainfall deficiency had been similar to the conditions experienced in the current drought. In his opinion, because of the large numbers of kangaroos, a conservative wool loss of $35,000 per annum would have been suffered from a flock of 10,000 sheep, before consideration of the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on feed.
In Mr Bignell's opinion Government compensation is warranted in recognition of the kangaroo problem which now exists even if that assistance came from the effects of reduced unimproved values.
Mr Naish recognised that kangaroos were a problem on the subject lands but had observed that each of the sale properties had the potential to suffer similar feral animal problems. He considered the problem to be a farm management issue "as opposed to something that I can include in my valuation" at least until a negative impact from the pest potential could be identified in the sales evidence. He agreed that the kangaroos would naturally follow the feed and a property which had been conservatively stocked, for the purposes of preserving a feed body in anticipation of a drought cycle could attract greater numbers than properties managed in a different fashion.
Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA)
Mr Bignell held the opinion that at the relevant dates of valuation, the uncertainty surrounding the Government's intention to control tree clearing also affected the development potential of, in particular, the gidyea country. He saw it as unreasonable then that such land should be valued on the basis that it possessed increased carrying capacity potential when that potential relied on tree clearing permits. Furthermore with a broad overall valuation figure per ha it was impossible for consideration to be given to the apportionment of value applied to that category of land. Again Mr Naish's response was that it was his task to interpret the market and he relied on sales of country similarly affected by any uncertainty associated with the VMA.
Findings
Relativity - "Widgeegoara" and "Colaine"
It has been observed that Mr Bignell's argument in relation to relativity was based on an interpretation as to the apportioned value of "Widgeegoara" which is not in accord with the evidence. However, if the safe carrying capacity estimates of the DPI were the sole criteria for comparison, then as at 1 October 1998, a greater difference than $11.52/ha for "Widgeegoara" and $11.15/ha for "Colaine" might be arguable. This is not necessarily because the valuation of "Colaine" is altogether too high, but possibly because the valuation of "Widgeegoara" is arguably too low. Mr Bignell's interpretation of the DPI figures as provided to the Land Court in the 1998 matter and also in this matter, suggested a carrying capacity for "Widgeegoara" as an individual block of 1DSE to 2.6 ha when as already observed it should have been 1DSE to less than 2.5 ha. In the circumstances I have formed the opinion that the benefit of doubt is provided in favour of the appellant if a combined valuation of $317,500 is adopted, before allowances, based on the apportionments arising from the previously existing valuation of "Widgeegoara" and "Colley's Well" and then "Colaine", as at 1 October 1998.
Valuation of Aggregation as at 1 October 1998
It is clear that in the Land Court decision relative to "Widgeegoara" and "Colley's Well" (with a total area of 22,548 ha) the only allowance which was adopted was for severance, based on the individual valuations presented to the Court. There was reference to a size allowance having been built into the aggregated value of the three blocks by Mr Naish and that must have been so, even though the increase in size was, in this country, relatively small from 22,548 ha to 29,540 ha. The severance (across "Warambah") remains, although technically the distance of the original severance has been reduced with the inclusion of "Colaine" within the aggregation. Although there was a suggestion that he had initially considered offering a lower valuation I have come to the conclusion that Mr Naish probably took a reasonable approach in finding a valuation of $305,000, which reflects a discount of about 4% based on an aggregated valuation of $317,500.
I find no basis for reducing the valuation appealed against as at 1 October 1998, and will apply the benefit of doubt to the appellant by accepting the chief executive's valuation.
Sales Evidence
For the reasons given I accept that the evidence supports an increase in the level of unimproved value over that applied as at 1 October 1998 for the sale properties, two of which are in locations somewhat similar to the subject property, merging out of the floodplain. However the increases applied by the chief executive leaves insufficient margin for error in the sales analyses and a reduction, albeit relatively small, is warranted.
As has been observed in other matters, if the land degraded by woody weed infestation has become less valuable yet overall levels of value are increasing then the better quality land must be becoming relatively more valuable. It has also been recognised that direct comparisons from one property to another would be assisted by the transparency provided by valuation methodology in which values are applied to the various land classifications as a check. As Mr Bignell observed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to consider, for example, the perceived effect of the development potential of gidyea lands on unimproved value when a rate per ha for the overall property is adopted as the sole basis of valuation.
Carrying Capacity
Carrying capacity potential is obviously a factor which relates to market value. The DPI assessments of carrying capacity are based on the condition of the land at the date of assessment, without consideration to development potential but with consideration to factors such as the existence of woody weed infestation and regrowth. There seems to be a general criticism that the historical estimates adopted by the chief executive are excessive. It has however been noted by the Court over the years that, provided the estimates are consistent, whether conservative or optimistic, they are a useful tool in the comparison process for valuation purposes. I am persuaded that the chief executive's estimates generally meet the standard of consistency for relativity purposes.
Vegetation Management Act 1999
Although the fears of landholders, as to the effect of this legislation on lands with development potential, are becoming more intense, there was no market evidence placed before the Court which showed deleterious effect as a direct effect of the VMA as at the relevant dates of valuation. It was Mr Naish's evidence that, as the VMA was applicable to the sale properties, any effect on values would have been reflected in the unimproved value analyses.
Clearly alertness to the potential for deleterious effect as a specific consequence of legislative controls is, and will be, important in the valuation process. If effect is identified there would seem to be no better way for it to be expressed than in the interpretation of value for the class of country actually affected. Just as classification of values for the various land types is seen to provide a useful check against the principal direct comparison methodology, such check methodology would be expected to be regarded as an even greater transparent necessity in the future, when impacts of the VMA on the development potential of certain types of country is under scrutiny.
Kangaroo Plague
Again it would seem reasonable to expect that if because of the peculiar nature of the country, such as the floodplain merge country, a particular problem becomes recognised as a specific and permanent disability then prudent operators in the marketplace will take that disability into account. Unimproved values are determined from an analysis of marketplace evidence. It may be of little comfort for appellants to be continually directed to market evidence but that is the reality of the principles of valuation.
This Court is concerned with market value. It is recognised that many landowners see legislation which involves environmental issues, including the control of feral animals and tree clearing, as an infringement of their practical management expectations and flavoured towards the philosophies of probably well-meaning but often ill-informed minority groups. However until such legislation can be identified as having an effect on market value the Court can do no more than be aware of the potential for deleterious effect. In the end result, the onus of proof of the grounds of appeal rests with the appellant.
Valuation as at 1 October 2001
It is generally accepted that the size of any property may have some influence on its market value and the effect of size should be reflected in the sales evidence. In this matter the subject aggregation is of a size comparable to the sale properties "Warambah" and "Cleland".
As best a direct comparison may be made with the sales evidence and then by adoption of a more conservative approach than was taken by the chief executive, an overall valuation of $12.70/ha for a property of the size and nature of the subject aggregation, before consideration of the severance issue, is considered to be supported. Severance remains as a disability which in my opinion should be specifically identified. An allowance of 2.5% is considered to again resolve any doubt in favour of the appellant given that the original severance has technically been reduced by the inclusion of "Colaine" in the aggregation.
The resultant valuation will be determined as follows:
29,540 ha @ $12.70/ha overall $375,158
Less allowance for severance 2.5% $9,378
$365,780
Adopt $366,000
Orders
1. Appeal V2002/0043
This appeal is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
2. Appeal V2992/0042
This appeal is disallowed and the chief executive's unimproved valuation of $305,000 as at 1 October 1998 is affirmed.
3.Appeal AV2002/0391
This appeal is allowed. The chief executive's valuation is set aside and the unimproved value as at 1 October 2001 determined in the amount of Three Hundred and Sixty-six Thousand Dollars ($366,000).
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0