Nock, L.J. v Minister for the Capital Territories

[1982] FCA 87

LAWRENCE JOHN NOCK and VALERIE NOCK V.	THE MINISTER
FOR THE CAPITAL TERRITORY
No.	ACT G 34 of 1981

Morling J.
20 May 1982

Sydney

ERRATA

p. 11 line 15

substltude;

"dld not invalidate", for "lnvalldated"

DAVID GRIFFITHS

Associate to

Mr Justice Morling

. - -

C A T C H W O R D S

Valuation - unimproved value - absence of sales of

unimproved land - use by valuers of sales of improved

land - allowance for value of improvements	- conflictlng
expert evidence - failure by valuer	to make internal

inspection of improved propertles - weight to be

attached to valuation	- no question of law
Admlnistrative Appeals Trlbunal Act 1975,	s.29(1)

Rates Ordinance 1926 (A.C.T.) , s s . 5 , 29(2)

LAWRENCE JOHN NOCK and VALERIE NOCK v. THE MINISTER

FOR THE CAPITAL TERRITORY

NO. ACT G 34 Of 1981

Morllng J.

20 May, 1982

Sydney

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1 1

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	1
1 No. ACT G 34 of 1981

REGISTRY	DISTRICT	1 1
DIVISION	GENERAL	1

ON APPEAL FROL THE ADNINISTRATIVE
APPEALS TRIBUNAL, GENERAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

BETWEEN :  LAYdRENCE JOHN NOCK
VALERIE NOCK

Applicants

AND :	-	THE NINISTER
CAPITAL TERRlTORY

FOR THE

Respondent

O R D E R

JUDGE YAKING ORDER: MORLING J.

DATE O F ORGER:  20 MAY 1961

NADE:	WHERE	SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.                The appllcation is dlsnissed.

2 . 'The appllcants to pay the respondent's costs of the

appllcatlon.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

No. ACT G 34 of 1981

DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FRON THE ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEALS TRIBUNAL, GENERAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

BETWEEN :  LAWRENCE JOHN NOCK
VALERIE NOCK

Applicants

AND :	-	THE MINISTER FOR THE
CAPITAL TERRITORY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGhENT

Morling J. 1982 20 May

This is an appeal from a decision of the Admlnistrative

Appeals Tribunal on an application for revlew of a decislon made

by the delegate of the Mlnister of State for the Capital

Terrltory to conflrrn the redetermination of the unimproved value
of a parcel of land pursuant to s.29(2)(b) of the Rates Ordinance

1926 (A.C.T.). Such an appeal may be brought to thls court only

on a question of law - vide s.44(1) of the Admlnistrative Appeals

Tribunal Act, 1975.

The a p p l i c a n t s a r e t h e o w n e r s of Block 22, Section 51 i n

t h e O i v i s i o n of Ceakin i n the A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y . Cn 6

March 1980, pursuant to S. 6(1) of the Rates Ordinance, the

Munster rede termined the unimproved value of the l and as a t 1

January 1979 to be $28,000. By a Notice of Valua t ion da ted 2 1

March	196G	the	a p p l i c a n t s were	advised of	the	r ede te rmina t ion .
They	thereupon gave no t ice ,	pursuant	to	s .29	of the Ordinance,	of

t h e i r o b j e c t i o n t o t h e r e d e t e r m i n e d v a l u e . They con tended t ha t

the value should be var ied f rom $26,000 to $15,COO f o r r e a s o n s

set o u t i n a s t a t emen t of grounds of o b j e c t i o n . The grounds of

oblec t lon were as fol lows:

“This p rope r ty 1s a l r e a d y v e r y h i g h l y c a p i t a l l s e d .

Thls has been re f lec ted t o some e x t e n t i n t h e

premlum p r l c e s p a l d f o r other properties i n t h e

a r e a w h i c h h a v e t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r f u r t h e r

c a p l t a l i s a t i o n	t o	b r i n g	them	up	t o	t h e	same
s t anda rd .	The	premium	element	does	n o t	e x i s t	i n
the	reallsable	p r l c e	o f	t h i s	p r o F e r t y	as	l i t t l e

scope o r need ex l s t s fo r fu r the r deve lopmen t .

“When the value of the property based on replace-

men t cos t s less the amount needed t o r e s t o r e t h e

p r o p e r t y t o prime c o n d i t l o n is c a l c u l a t e d t h e UCV

of t h e l a n d 1s a c t u a l l y c o n s i d e r a b l y less t h a n the

$15,000 I have suggested. However, g iven t he

l o c a t i o n I would be prepared t o pay u p t c $15,000

f o r s u c h a block and therefore I f e e l o b l l g e d t o

sugges t a v a l u e f o r r a t i n g a t a b o u t t h i s l e v e l . “

Upon r e c e l p t of the o b ~ e c t i o n t h e d e l e g a t e s o u g h t a d v l c e

from the Chlef Valuer i n the Valua t lon Branch of the Aus t ra l lan

Taxat lon Off lce . The Chief Valuer recommended t h a t the r e d e t e r -

m i n a t i o n o f t h e cons ider ing u n i m p r o v e d v a l u e of t h e s u b j e c t l a n d be

conf i rmed. Af te r the g rounds o f ob lec t ion and the

advlce provided by the Chlef Valuer , the de lega te concluded tha t

t h e a m o u n t o f the r e d e t e r m i n e d v a l u e was n o t t oo h l g h .

Accord ingly , he conf i rmed the rede termina t ion of t h e unimproved

va lue o f the l and as a t 1st January 1979 a t t h e sum of $ 2 6 , G G G .

Upon r e c e l v l n g n o t i c e o f t h i s d e c i s i o n , the a p p l i c a n t s e x e r c l s e d

t h e i r r l g h t t o apply pursuant t o S .29 (1) of t he Admin i s t r a t ive

Appeals Trlbunal Act , 1975 t o have the dec is ion rev lewed by the

Admlnls t ra t ive Appeals Tribunal .

Be fo re t he T r ibuna l t he ques t ion was w h e t h e r , i n terms

o f s . 2 9 ( 2 ) of the Grdinance , the unimproved value of the s u b j e c t

land as redetermined was t o o h i g h . T h e unimproved value of a

pa rce l o f l and 1 s d e f i n e d i n s.5 of the Ordinance as “ t h e c a p i t a l

sum	that	mlght	be	expected	t o have	been	o f f e r e d	on	the	r e l e v a n t
d a t e f o r ( i n t e r a l i a ) :	t h e	l e a s e	o f	t h e	p a r c e l	of	l a n d ” ,	it	being	assuned

“ ( a ) tha t t he on ly improvemen t s on o r t o t h e

parce l	o f	l and	were	the	improvements	(if
any)	by	way	of	c l e a r i n g ,	f i l l i n g ,	g r a d l n g ,

draining, levelling or excavat ing , made by

t h e Commonwealth o r t h e c o s t of which has

been pald by the Commonwealth. I‘

The Tr lbuna l had t he bene f i t o f hea r ing expe r t ev idence

from	a	r e a l	e s t a t e	c o n s u l t a n t	a n d	v a l u e r	i n	p r l v a t e	p r a c t i c e
ca l led	by	the	appl icants ,	and	f rom	a	q u a l l f l e d	and	experienced

v a l u e r w i t h t h e A u s t r a l i a n T a x a t i o n O f f i c e c a l l e d b y t h e

respondent . I t a l s o had t h e b e n e f l t of a v i e w o f t h e s u b ~ e c t

land. It is c l e a r t h a t t h e Tribunal went about i t s t a s k i n a

commendably thorough and competent manner and no complaint i s

made, nor could It be made, of the manner i n which the review w a s

conducted. In the even t , t he T r ibuna l dec lded t ha t t he dec i s lon

of the Mlnis ter should be va r l ed by s u b s t i t u t i n g f o r t h e amount

o f $26,000 t h e amount of $25,500 as the unimproved value of the

land as a t 1st January 1979.

The app l i can t s con tend that errors o f l a w were made by

t h e	T r i b u n a l	i n	a r r i v i n g	a t	i t s	d e c l s i o n .	They	s e e k	o r d e r s	t h a t
the	d e c l s i o n	of	t h e	Tribunal	should	be	set	a s lde	and	t he

unimproved value of the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n l and de te rmined a t $14,000. The

a p p l i c a n t s d l d n o t h a v e l e g a l b e f o r e the T r i b u n a l

nor on a p p l i c a n t s ' the appea l . M r Nock appeared i n p e r s o n t o argue the

c a s e .

It 1 s unnecessary t o r e f e r i n a n y g r e a t d e t a i l . t o t h e

course of the p roceed ings be fo re t he T r ibuna l . A b r i e f s t a t e m e n t

of the na tu re of the ev ldence and t h e a m b i t o f t h e d i s p u t e b e f o r e

the T r ibuna l t h a t a r l s e w i l l s u f f l c e f o r the purpose of d i spos ing of i s s u e s

on the appea l .

The sub jec t l and i s l o c a t e d i n t h e u p p e r par t of Ceakin

and	backs	on	t o bushland	on	the slopes of Red H i l l .	I t 1s a
l a rge	b lock ,	hav lng	an	a r ea	o f	some 1796 sq. metres, and i s

v i r t u a l l y r e g u l a r I n shape. I t has a t t r a c t i v e v i e w s t o w a r d s the

north and Canberra C i t y . Cralnage and sewerage easements cross

t h e l a n d , v i r t u a l l y b l s e c t l n g it. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e i s a drain-

age easement down t h e e a s t e r n s i d e of it.

Most, i f n o t a l l , of land set a p a r t for r e s i d e n t i a l

purposes in Deakin has been bu l l t upon. I n consequence , there 1s

an	absence	of	any	sales of comparable	vacant	land	which	valuers
may	use	t o a r r i v e	a t	a s s e s s m e n t s	of	unimproved	value.	Thls, o f

necess l ty , poses a problem for a v a l u e r who i s charged wi th the

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f d e t e r m i n i n g , w h e t h e r f o r r a t i n g or o t h e r

pu rposes , t he unimproved va lue of l and .

M r Gowing, t h e v a l u e r c a l l e d b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t ,

In t he absence of any sales of comparable vacant land a t or about

t h e r e l e v a n t d a t e , a p p r o a c h e d t h e t a s k of v a l u a t i o n by ana lys ing

sales of comparable improved parcels of land w i t h t h e o b j e c t o f

i s o l a t l n g	t h e	unimproved	value	of	such	lands.	This	method
n e c e s s l t a t e d ,	o f	c o u r s e ,	t h e	determination	of	the	added	va lue

g lven by s t ruc tura l and o ther improvements on the l ands . The

unimproved value so deduced from such sa les were then used to

a r r l v e a t t h e unlmproved value of t h e s u b ~ e c t l and .

me a p p l i c a n t s d i d not d i s p u t e t h a t t h e method o f

va lua t lon adopted by M r Gowing w a s n o t a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h e

ci rcumstances. However, t h e y d i d a t t a c k t h e manner i n whlch he

had app l l l ed p r imar i ly t he me thod In va lu ing t he i r l and . Th i s a t t ack w a s

based upon Fir Gowlng ' s f a l lu re t o i n s p e c t i n t e r n a l l y

a l l t h e a r g u e d p r o p e r t l e s u s e d b y him for comparison purposes . It w a s

t h a t t h l s f a i l u r e r e n d e r e d h i s v a l u a t i o n o f t h o s e

p r o p e r t l e s i n v a l i d a n d t h a t c o n s e q u e n t l y h i s v a l u a t l o n s h o u l d

have been disregarded by t h e Tribunal.

It i s c l e a r from t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t Fir Gohvlng d i d n o t

make i n t e r n a l i n s p e c t l o n s of the houses e r ec t ed on Some o f t h e

l o t s t h a t he valued for comparison purposes. Iie a g r e e d t h a t lt

i s	d e s i r a b l e	for	a n i n t e r n a l I n s p e c t i o n t o b e	made	of	a	p r o p e r t y
when	t h e s a l e p r i c e o f	It	is ana lysed fo r	the	purpose	of	a r r l v l n g

a t t h e unimproved	value	of	the land .	B u t he	s a id	tha t when	it	i s
n o t p o s s i b l e information can be used	t o	make	a n	i n t e r n a l	i n s p e c t l o n ,	other	sources	o f

t o a r r i v e a t an e s t ima te of t h e v a l u e of

the	improvements.	Such	sources	i n fo rma t ion	o f	i nc lude	t he
b u l l d i n g	p l a n s ,	i n f o n a t l o n	c o n t a i n e d	on	Cepartmental	f i l e s ,	and

information provlded by agents with knowledge of t h e c o n d i t i o n of

the	Improvements.	He	s a i d	t h a t	t h e s e	sources of	in format lon	were
r e l i e d	upon	by	him	when	ana lys ing t hose s a l e s	i n r e s p e c t	of	which

he was unable t o make i n t e r n a l i n s p e c t i o n s . I t a p p e a r s t h a t Mr

Manning, t h e v a l u e r c a l l e d b y t h e a p p l l c a n t s , h a d t h e b e n e f i t of

i n t e r n a l l n s p e c t l o n s o f t h e s a l e s w h i c h h e r e l i e d upon i n maklng

his v a l u a t i o n .

M r Gowing r e l i e d upon t h e s a l e s of f o u r p r o p e r t i e s , o n l y

one of which he had inspec ted in te rna l ly a t t h e tlme h e made h l s

f i rs t v a l u a t l o n . However, p r i o r t o t h e completion of t h e h e a r l n g

b e f o r e t h e T r l b u n a l h e made a r e v i s e d v a l u a t i o n of one o f t he

four p roper t ies , namely No. 2 2 Brassey S t r e e t , Deakin a f t e r a n

i n t e r n a l i n s p e c t i o n of it. It seems t o have been agreed by both

v a l u e r s t h a t t h e sale o f t h l s p r o p e r t y a f f o r d e d the bes t ev idence

of t h e

v a l u e S t r e e t h a d l n c l u d e d c e r t a i n c h a t t e l s a n d i n h l s r e v i s e d of t h e a p p l i c a n t s ' p r o p e r t y . The s a l e o f 2 2 Erassey

valuation

Mr Gowing h l s o r l g l n a l v a l u a t i o n . a t t r l b u t e d a smaller v a l u e t o t h e s e c h a t t e l s t h a n i n

The T r i b u n a l r e j e c t e d a submiss ion , sa id t o be based on

the dec i s ion Railway Company (1864) Ch. o f K inde r s l ey V-C i n Co t t e r v T h e Mf t ropo l i t an

l0 J u r i s t , N . S . 1014, tha t the absence

Of i n t e r n a l i n s p e c t i o n o f some of t h e p r o p e r t i e s i n v a l i d a t e d h r

Gowing ' s Valua t ion . In re jec t ing this submission the Tribunal

(Mr Ewart Smith : Member) s a i d :

"I conc lude on t h i s aspect b y r e p e a t l n g t h a t I n

my	view	the	absence	of	a n i n t e r n a l i n s p e c t i o n	i n
a l l	t he	c i r cums tances	does	no t	i nva l ida t e	t he
v a l u a t i o n :	it	d o e s ,	h o w e v e r ,	i n d i c a t e	t h a t	i n

p a r t t h e v a l u a t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e s a

speculat ive e lement , which may be minimised by

a v a i l a b i l l t y t h e o t h e r o f s o u r c e s o f

information . ' I

It i s t h i s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i s s a i d t o demonstr , a t e an

e r r o r o f l a w i n t h e T r i b u n a l ' s d e c i s i o n .

When cons ider ing the appl icants a rgument , and Cot te r Is

----_

- Case whlch i s s a l d t o b e t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f it, it i s necessary t o

b e a r i n mind tha t under o rd inary c i rcumstances the p rocess of

v a l u a t l o n	i s	an	exercise	I n	d e t e r m l n i n g	f a c t s ,	n o t	law.	I n	e x
-

p a r t e Stocks & Parkes	Investments;	re	The	Nin i s t e r	(1569)	72
s a i d :

S.R. ( N . S . W . ) 104 a t 107 t h e New South Wales Court of Appeal

" . . .we shou ld s t a t e t ha t w e would r e s p e c t f u l l y

a g r e e t h a t g e n e r a l l y t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of va lue

i s a	ques t ion	o	f	f ac t	and	i f	no more	t h a n	t h a t
i s	involved	no	q u e s t l o n	o	f	l a w c a n	a r i s e .	It	i s

a ques t lon of expe r t ev idence . "

I n Bopark Building (No. X ) v . Minis ter for Lands (1968)

70	S . R .	( N . S . W . )	336	a t 345,	Sugerman	J . A .	s a l d	t h a t	" t h e	way	of
going	about	valuing"	a fee	s imple	i s a	q u e s t i o n	o	f	f a c t .	And	i n

Turner v Minis te r o f P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n (1956) 95 C . L . R . 245 a t

268, Dixon C . J . obse rved t ha t va lua t ion canno t be made t o depend

e n t i r e l y on	a	l o g l c a l	p r o c e s s	or	formula	and	tha t	l n a	v a l u a t i o n
case ques t ions confused with ques t ions of	o	f	r ea son ing	abou t	matters	o f	f a c t	are n o t t o	be

l a w .

I n t h e a r g u m e n t i n th is c o u r t , as b e f o r e t h e Tribunal,

it w a s conceded t h a t the method of va lua t ion adop ted by M r Gowing

was a p p r o p r i a t e for the purpose in hand . This concession was

i n e v i t a b l e , as it i s d i f f i c u l t t o conce ive o f any o the r va lua t ion

approach t ha t could have been adopted under the c l rcumstances.

I t i s a method commonly adopted by competent va luers in the

determinatlon of unlmproved values where there i s an absence of

s a l e s of comparable un improved land . See J.F.N. Murray,

P r i n c i p l e s a n d P r a c t l c e of V a l u a t i o n , 3rd e d i t l o n p . 1 2 5 .

I n d e e d , t h e v a l u e r c a l l e d b y t h e a p p l i c a n t s used t h e satme method

i n w r i t i n g h i s v a l u a t i o n .

If It be a c c e p t e d t h a t no error of law w a s made by M r

Gowinq i n a d o p t i n g hls method of v a l u a t i o n , it i s d i f f i c u l t t o

see how it can be a rgued t ha t t he T r ibuna l e r r ed In l a w I n g l v i n g

w e i g h t t o a v a l u a t i o n made In accordance w i t h it. The Tr ibunal

dld no t accep t M r Gowing ' s va lua t ion i n i t s e n t i r e t y and w a s

conscious of t h e n e e d t o p r o c e e d c a u t i o u s l y i n a c t i n g upon i t .

I n e f f e c t , t h e a p p l l c a n t s ' s u b m i s s l o n comes down t o t h e

p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e T r i b u n a l erred i n law in g iv ing any we igh t

t o hr Gowlng ' s va lua t lon because o f h i s f a i lu re t o l n spec t

i n t e r n a l l y some of t h e p r o p e r t l e s r e f e r r e d t o i n h i s v a l u a t i o n .

I have a l r eady men t loned t ha t bo th va lue r s r ega rded t he s a l e o f

N o . 22 Brassey Street, Deakln a s the most comparable sale. It 1 s

t r u e t h a t Mr Gowlng h a d n o t i n s p e c t e d t h a t p r o p e r t y i n t e r n a l l y

when he made h l s first v a l u a t i o n . B u t a s I have po ln ted ou t he

d i d i n s p e c t it i n t e r n a l l y b e f o r e maklng his amended v a l u a t i o n of

that p rope r ty .

M r Nock a r g u e d t h a t M r Gowlng was d l s c r e d i t e d a s a

v a l u e r b e c a u s e o f h i s l n i t i a l f a i l u r e t o i n s p e c t the p r o p e r t y

i n t e r n a l l y a n d t h a t t h e r e f o r e n o w e i g h t s h o u l d h a v e b e e n

a t t r i b u t e d t o h i s amended va lua t ion . But the weight t o be g iven

t o br	Gowinq' S evidence w a s f o r the Trlbunal	and	1s n o t a matter
of	law whlch can	be	r a l s e d i n t h i s c o u r t .

C o t t e r ' s C a s e ( s u p r a ) was r e l i e d upon by M r hock t o

suppor t h l s p r o p o s i t i o n that M r Gowlng's l n l t i a l f a i l u r e t o make

a n i n t e r n a l m a t t e r i n s p e c t l o n of No. 22 B r a s s e y S t r e e t , r e q u i r e d , as a

of l a w , t h a t h i s l n l t i a l v a l u a t l o n of t h a t p r o p e r t y s h o u l d

have been dlsregarded. However, Co t t e r ' s Case does no t suppor t

t h a t p r o p o s i t l o n , as I s h a l l e n d e a v o u r t o show. I n C o t t e r ' s C a s e

a r a i lway company was required by the the va lue r e l e v a n t l e g i s l a t i o n t o

compensate the lessee of p remlses for of h i s l e a s e and

c e r t a i n f l x t u r e s i n t h e p r e m i s e s . The ral lway company's valuer

made a v a l u a t i o n o f t h e l e a s e , b u t d l d n o t e n t e r t h e premises.

So f a r as one	can	t e l l	from	t h e	r e p o r t	o f	t h e	c a s e ,	t h e	v a l u e r
d i d	n o t	v a l u e	t h e	f i x t u r e s	a t	a l l ,	a l t h o u g h	t h e	r a i l w a y	company

was bound t o p a y f o r t h e m . I n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e

Vlce-Chancel lor said:

"It is sald that the surveyor never examlned the

premises in such a manner as t o enable him t o

form a f a i r ~ u d g m e n t , h a v i n g i n f a c t n e v e r

en te red t he house , b u t mere ly i n spec ted t he

ex ter ior , which cannot be s a t i s f a c t o r y . EO

doubt	t h e r e	may	be	houses	o f p r e c i s e l y t h e	same
d imens lons	ex te rna l ly ,	b u t which	may	be	o f	a
t o t a l l y	d i f f e r e n t	v a l u e ,	a n d	t h e	k n o w l e d g e	o f

t h t f a c t w i l l depend on an inspec t lon of the

i n t e r i o r - one may be i n good r e p a l r , t h e other

not; and t h e r e were many o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .

Therefore , It appears t o me there have no t been

t h e means used by the surveyor which he was

bound	t o u s e ,	i n	order t o make	a	f a i r	e s t i m a t e .
I	wlsh	It t o be	u n d e r s t o o d ,	t h a t	I f	i n a n y c a s e
under	the	8 5 t h s e c t l o n	(1.e.	o f t h e	Land	Clauses

Consol ida t ion A c t ) where a surveyor has made h i s

v a l u a t i o n , he has done so i n s u c h a manner as t o

enable him t o do it f a i r l y , t h e C o u r t w l l l n o t

d i s t u r b it; b u t h e r e it is n o t so, and,

t h e r e f o r e , t h e C o u r t ought t o i n t e r f e r e . "

I n e f f e c t what the Vlce-Chancel lor he ld in tha t case w a s

t h a t the su rveyor had n o t made a v a l u a t i o n o f t h e k i n d r e q u i r e d

by	the	l e g i s l a t l o n .	T h a t	was	c l e a r l y	t h e	c a s e	if	t h e	r a i l w a y
company	was	o b l i g e d	t o	p a y	f o r	the	f l x t u r e s ,	b u t	the	v a l u a t i o n

d i d no t i nc lude them. In any even t , t he basis f o r t h e f l n d i n g

appears to have been t ha t t he su rveyor was n o t i n a p o s i t i o n t o

form a f a i r ~ u d g m e n t o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e premises. That f inding

w a s based on t h e f a c t s of the pa r t i cu la r case. The c a s e i s n o t

a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p r o F o s l t i o n t h a t , a s a ma t t e r of l a w , f a i l u r e

by	a	v a l u e r	t o	make	a n	i n t e r n a l	i n s p e c t i o n	of	improvements
e r e c t e d	on	l a n d	i n v a l i d a t e s	h l s	v a l u a t l o n	of	t h a t	l a n d ,	e v e n

though he re l ies upon o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n t o assess the v a l u e o f

the Improvements.

There is American a u t h o r l t y t o the c o n t r a r y o f t h e

p r o p o s i t i o n relled upon b y t h e a p p e l l a n t s . S e e the cases

r e f e r r e d t o i n Wigrhore on Evidence, V o l . 5, pp. 66 and 67 upon

the au tho r i ty o f wh ich t he fo l lowing s t a t emen t i s made a t p . 6 7 :

“There i s no r u l e of l a w , and there can be none,

d e f i n i n g how much a w i t n e s s s h a l l know o f

proper ty before he can be permi t ted t o g ive an

o p l n l o n of i t s v a l u e . He must have some

acqualntance w i t h it s u f f i c i e n t t o e n a b l e him to

form some estimate o f I t s value, and then It i s

f o r t h e j u r y t o determine how much weight t o

a t t a c h t o such es t imate .“

In any even t , i n the l l g h t o f M r Gowing‘ S amended

v a l u a t l o n made a f t e r a n l n t e r n a l i n s p e c t i o n of 2 2 B r a s s e y S t r e e t ,

t h e a t t a c k a c a d e m l c o n h i s m i t i a l v a l u a t i o n 1 s of l i t t l e more t h a n

i n t e r e s t .

I a m of the op in lon tha t the T r ibuna l was c l e a r l y n o t i n

error i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the absence of a n i n t e r n a l i n s p e c t i o n i n

a l l the circumstances of the p r e s e n t c a s e i n v a l l d a t e d blr Gowlng‘s

v a l u a t i o n . m e Tr lbuna l ca re fu l ly cons ide red t he who le o f t he

evidence. I t gave reasons for p r e f e r r i n g t o accep t M r Gowing’ S

e v l d e n c e t o t h a t of blr Kanning. I t is q u i t e imposslble t o s a y

t h a t , a s a ma t t e r o f law, the Trlbunal was n o t e n t l t l e d t o t a k e

t h l s view of the ev idence .

It was also contended tha t the Tribunal erred In law I n

concluding, so it w a s a l l e g e d i n the n o t l c e o f a p p e a l , “ t h a t

there can be a d i f f e r e n c e i n v a l u a t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e end u s e

t o which they a p p e a r e d a re t o be put .I‘ The a p p l i c a n t s a r g u e d t h a t thls

a l l e g e d e r r o r T r l b u n a l ’ s d e c i s l o n : f r o m t h e f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e i n t h e

“ I t h i n k C o t t e r ‘ S Case has t o be

c o n s i d e r e d	i n	I t s	context,	namely,	where	the
v a l u a t l o n	r e l a t e d	t o	t h e	a s c e r t a i n m e n t	o f	t h e

f a i r v a l u e t o be p a i d t o a n owner of p rope r ty on

a compul so ry acqu l s l t l on o f t ha t p rope r ty . 1 do

n o t a c c e p t t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s claim t h a t t h a t

decision i s a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l v a l u a t i o n s , i n a l l

c i rcumstances. As the respondent po in ted ou t l n

h i s r e s p o n s e t o t h l s claim, the Pr ivy Councl l

has r e c o g n i s e d t h a t ' t h e p r i n c i p l e s which

de termlne ques t ions o f compensation f o r p r o p e r t y

resumed or expropr i a t ed are no t o f a s s i s t ance on

q u e s t i o n s o f r a t i n g a s s e s s m e n t s " ( G o l l a n v

Randwlck Munlclpal Council (l?60) 3 WLR 785 a t

790-791). L a t e r , a t 794, the Privy Counci l ,

r e fe r r ing t o t he Va lua t lon o f Lan2	A c t	( N . S . K . ) ,
s a i d :

" In fact the v a l u a t i o n s made under it a r e

r e q u i r e d n o t o n l y for t h e p u r p o s e s o f

r a t e s , b u t a l s o of s u c h d l v e r s e

t r a n s a c t i o n s as resumption and exchange

of land, advances on mortgage and d e a t h

a n d	t r a n s f e r	d u t i e s .	A	b a s l s	o f
v a l u a t i o n	t h a t	may	seem	reasonable	and

appropr ia te for one o f these purFoses i s

n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s u i t a b l e f o r a n o t h e r . '

I n t h e unimproved e v e n t t h e l r L o r d s h l p s c o n c l u d e d t h a t t he

v a l u e s t o be a sce r t a ined unde r t he

A c t a r e v a l u e s t o b e employed p r i m a r i l y f o r a

r a t i n g scheme. But the r e c o g n l t l o n t h a t t h e r e

can be a d i f f e r e n c e i n r e l a t i o n t o d i f f e r e n t

purposes remains .I'

I n my op in ion , a l l the Tr ibunal was say ing i n the above

passage was that a v a l u a t i o n may have t o t a k e a c c o u n t of

p a r t l c u l a r c r i t e r l a whlch may be r e l e v a n t t o the de t e rmina t ion o f

v a l u e	i n	a	p a r t i c u l a r	s t a t u t o r y	c o n t e x t .	Thus	the	h y p o t h e t l c a l
n a t u r e of	a	v a l u a t l o n of	a	n o t l o n a l	fee	simple of	unimproved	land

may r e q u i r e a v a l u e r t o a d o p t d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a from those whlch

he would adopt In making a v a l u a t i o n of land for compensat ion

purposes . I n e s sence , wha t t he T r lbuna l s a ld In t he above

passage was t h a t C o t t e r ' s C a s e h a s t o be consldered on I ts own

facts and w a s n o t , as it s a l d , "applicable t o a l l v a l u a t i o n s , I n

a l l c i rcumstances" . In so hold ing the Tr ibunal w a s c l e a r l y

c o r r e c t ,	as	I	have	endeavoured	to	show.	In	any	event ,	when
r each lng	I t s	d e c i s l o n	the	Tr ibunal	d l d	n o t	r e l y	upon	t h e	view
a t t r l b u t e d	t o	it	b y	t h e	a p p l l c a n t s	t h a t	" t h e r e	c a n	be	a

d i f f e r e n c e	i n	v a l u a t l o n s	a c c o r d i n g	t o	t h e	end	u s e	t o which	they
a r e t o evldence ,	be	p u t . "	The	Tribunal	reached	i t s	dec i s lon	on	the

and tha t ev idence amply jus t i f led the dec ls ion .

It was f u r t h e r s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e T r i b u n a l e r r e d i n l a w

i n a c c e p t i n g a s e v i d e n c e a n e x h i b i t w h i c h d e a l t wi th c o n s t r u c t i o n

costs as a t J a n u a r y 1979. The complaint made about the admission

of	th i s	e x h i b i t w a s	n o t	so much	tha t	it	should	not	have	been
admi t t ed	i n to	ev idence ,	bu t	rather	t h a t	It	d i d	n o t	a f f o r d	a

r e a s o n a b l e b a s l s f o r a n y p a r t of the v a l u a t i o n e x e r c l s e . The

Tr ibunal was not bound	by	the	ru l e s	o	f	ev	ldence	and	was	e n t i t l e d
t o	i n f o r m	l t s e l f	i n	a n y	manner	and	such	manner	as	it thought

a p p r o p r i a t e - see s . 3 3 ( l ) ( c ) of t h e A d m l n i s t r a t i v e -- Appea l s

Tr ibunal Act . The Tribunal d l d n o t err i n law i n a c c e p t i n g t h e

document	as	ev idence .
A	s imi l a r compla in t was made o f t he accep tance by t he

Tribunal of Mr Cowlng' S r ev l sed s chedu le o f va lues o f chat te ls

lncluded In the s a l e o f 22 Brassey S t ree t . I n t h i s s c h e d u l e M r

Gowlng r e d u c e d t h e v a l u e s h e h a d i n i t l a l l y p l a c e d upon some o f

t h e cha t te l s . The rea l compla in t about th l s document w a s t h a t It

s h o u l d not have been given any weight because it showed t h a t W r

Gowlng had changed h l s o p i n l o n o f t h e v a l u e of some o f t h e

c h a t t e l s . It IS c l e a r from t h e T r i b u n a l ' s d e c l s i o n t h a t It w a s

w e l l aware of the f a l l i b i l i t y of Flr Gowing' S v a l u a t i o n of the

c h a t t e l s and it made a l lowance for th is i n i t s de te rmina t ion . As

.

14.

i n the c a s e of	the document	dealing	with	c o n s t r u c t i o n	costs,	the
Trlbunal	w a s	c l e a r l y e n t i t l e d	t o accep t	this	document	a s ev idence

and give t o the op in lons expres sed i n it s u c h we igh t a s lt

thought f i t .

It was f i n a l l y s u b m i t t e d tha t the Tribunal e r r e d i n l a w

i n " n o t h a v i n g proper r e g a r d t o e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d b y M r

Manning" . There i s no subs t ance t h i s i n submiss ion . The

T r i b u n a l g a v e M r M a n n l n g ' s e v i d e n c e t h e m o s t c a r e f u l

c o n s i d e r a t l o n and gave persuasive reasons for n o t a c t i n g upon It.

It has no t been shown t h a t t h e accord ingly T r l b u n a l made a n y e r r o r

of law i n a r r i v i n g a t i t s dec is ion and the appea l

i s dismissed w l t h c o s t s .