Queensland Investment Corporation v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy
[2004] QLC 71
•18 August 2004
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Queensland Investment Corporation v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy [2004] QLC 0071 PARTIES: Queensland Investment Corporation
(appellant)v. Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy
(respondent/applicant)FILE NO: AV2003/0805 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDING: Application for further Answers to Interrogatories DELIVERED ON: 18 August 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER Mr BR O'Connor, Judicial Registrar ORDERS: 1. In regard to Interrogatories 1 - 3, the answers should be spelt out with more precision, having regard to concerns the appellant has raised in its submission.
2. In regard to Interrogatories 8(d), 8(e) and 10(d), the respondent should provide sufficient information on the factors listed in Schedule I of the Answer to Interrogatories so that an expert witness engaged by the appellant would understand fairly precisely what was being considered.
3. In regard to Interrogatory 10(f), the respondent should confirm the percentage applied in a formal response.
CATCHWORDS: Practice and Procedure - Interrogatories - Need for validation - Appropriate person to validate
Practice and Procedure - Interrogatories - Application for further answers - Inadequate answers alleged - Application granted in part
APPEARANCES: Mr RN Traves SC for the Appellant
Mr DB Fraser QC for the Respondent (Applicant)SOLICITORS: Minter Ellison for the Appellant
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy for the Respondent
The appellant, as owner of the parcel of land upon which is situated Grand Central Shopping Centre, has lodged an appeal under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 against a determination of the Chief Executive of the unimproved valuation of the land. Owners of several other major shopping centres throughout the State have lodged appeals on similar grounds to the appellant. Three of such appeals will be heard at hearings set to commence on 20 October 2004.
As a further interlocutory step in the proceedings, the appellant has made an application for an order that the respondent provide further answers to the interrogatories delivered on 18 June 2004 within fourteen days.
The facts and circumstances on which the application is based are as follows:
1. The appellant was granted leave to administer interrogatories on 28 May 2004.
2.On 18 June 2004 the appellant delivered interrogatories to the respondent consistent with the order of the Land Court permitting it to do so.
3.On 9 July 2004 the respondent delivered a document purporting to be answers to those interrogatories. They were signed by the respondent's principal legal officer, Mr JB O'Rourke, but were not accompanied by a verifying affidavit.
4.By letter 27 July 2004 the appellant advised the respondent that it regarded the answers to be deficient and stated the bases for its assertions in this regard.
The respondent has since provided a verifying affidavit by Gregory Patrick Crowley, a Principal Valuer within the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (NRM & E) dated 2 August 2004. However, the appellant now challenges whether Mr Crowley is an appropriate person to perform such process.
Two issues arise for Court determination. First, is the verification by Mr Crowley adequate. Second, which, if any, of the interrogatories require further answers from the respondent?
The Verification Issue
The respondent has raised the question as to whether Mr Crowley is an appropriate person to swear the affidavit verifying the answers to interrogatories. Mr Crowley's position details and the background to his performing this verifying role are outlined in his affidavit and, in more detail, in the oral evidence at the hearing of this application of Mr O’Rourke.
The provisions on interrogatories in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) - Chapter 7, Part I, Division 2, apply to the current matter, being adopted by r.4(1) of the Land Court Rules 2000. The provision relevant to this particular matter is r.235(1) which provides as follows:
" An affidavit verifying the statement of a person in answer to interrogatories must be made - …..
(c) if the person is a corporation or organisation -
(i) a member or officer of the corporation or organisation; or
(ii) another individual involved in the management of its affairs;"
The current application relates primarily to the Grand Central Shopping Centre. It appears that the departmental valuer who carried out the detailed valuation exercise for this matter was Mr Shane Montgomery. Until recently, Mr Montgomery was responsible, in his role of completing shopping centre valuations under current appeal, to Mr Simon Dawson, a principal valuer of the Department based in the South-East (Queensland). Mr Dawson was responsible for determining the appellant's initial valuation objection, presumably after conferring with Mr Montgomery. Mr Dawson would have been the obvious person to verify this affidavit had he not resigned from the Department fairly recently. It would not be appropriate or, indeed legally possible, for a former officer to verify for the Department.
Mr Crowley subsequently assumed Mr Dawson's former role as Principal Valuer, NRM & E, with responsibility for overseeing the current shopping centre valuations. In this role, he has verified the affidavit.
Counsel for the appellant suggests Mr Montgomery may have been a much more appropriate (although not the only possible person) to verify this affidavit because of his intimate knowledge of the Grand Central valuation. It was further suggested that the current process adopted by the Department is an attempt to insulate Mr Montgomery from putting on oath what has occurred (Transcript p.15).
The respondent argues, for verifying purposes, Mr Crowley as principal valuer within NRM & E is an appropriate person to perform the role. Provided he has liaised with the proper persons for input into his answers, this is all that is required in the verifying role. A Principal Valuer, it is argued, would be in a better position to do so than, say, the Chief Executive of the Department.
I have considered the arguments of the parties and the authorities referred, namely Welsbach Incandescent Gas Lighting Company v New Sunlight Incandescent Company (1900) 2 Ch 1, and Smith Kline and French Laboratories v Intercontinental Pharmaceuticals (1969) 123 CLR 514. The appellants, while properly insisting on verification by an officer other than the respondent's solicitor, did not request verification by Mr Montgomery or any other specified person.
In my view, given Mr Crowley's current role as Principal Valuer based in Bundall (Gold Coast) and Brisbane; the fact that he worked as a superior to Mr Montgomery in Bundall prior to his current appointment; and Mr Dawson's unavailability through resignation to verify, all lead to the conclusion that Mr Crowley is an appropriate person to verify the required affidavit.
Adequacy of Answers
The Law
Relevant provisions of the UCPR in relation to this matter include:
"232 Statement in answer to interrogatories
(1) A statement in answer to interrogatories must comply with this rule, unless the court otherwise orders.
(2) The statement must specifically -
(a) answer the substance of each interrogatory; or
(b) object to answering each interrogatory.
(3) An answer must be given directly and without evasion or resort to technicality."
"236 Failure to answer interrogatory
(1) This rule applies if a person does not give an answer, or gives an insufficient answer, to an interrogatory.
(2) The court may -
(a) order an answer or further answer be given under rule 231; or
(b) order the person to attend to be orally examined; or
(c) if the person is not qualified to make the affidavit verifying the statement in answer to the interrogatories – order a qualified individual to attend to be orally examined.
(3) This rule does not limit the powers of the court under rule 237."
"237 Failure to comply with court order
(1) If a person does not comply with an order under rule 236(2)(a), the interrogating party or another party may apply on notice to the court for -
(a) an order that all or part of the proceedings be stayed or dismissed; or
(b) a judgment or other order against the person; or
(c) an order requiring the relevant statement in answer to interrogatories or the affidavit verifying the statement to be filed or served within a stated time.
(2) The court may make an order under subrule (1), or another order, specifying consequences for failing to comply with the order, the court considers appropriate.
(3) This rule does not limit the powers of the court to punish for contempt of court."
Instructive observations on the extent of the obligation of either party to the interrogatories process appears in Aspar Autobarn Co-operative Society v Dovala Pty Ltd (Federal Court of Australia, Woodward J, 21 November 1986, unreported p 552):
"If the use of interrogatories is to be effective, the task must be approached responsibly on both sides. It should not be seen as a battle of wits, or indeed as any form of contest. It is an opportunity to assist the parties and the court to have the matter prepared for trial as quickly and cheaply as possible. The chief obligations on the interrogator are to ask questions as clearly and concisely as possible, and to ask only those questions which really require an answer in the particular case – by way of providing information not already known or making a relevant and required admission – in order to advance the interrogator's case or to help meet the opposition's case …
So far as persons interrogated are concerned, it is in my view that they also have a responsibility, to the court and to their opponents, to do their best to answer interrogatories in an open and helpful way, not in a clever or grudging way. Thus I believe they and their advisers should not avoid answering a question which is relevant but contains an obvious typing error. If the intention is clear enough, it should be answered – with an appropriate reference to the error. If the nature of the error is not reasonably clear, then of course the interrogatory cannot be answered".
It has always been necessary that the interrogatories and the answers be expressed in precise language. In Kupresak v Clifton Bricks (Canberra) Pty Ltd 1984 57 ACTR 32, Blackburn J stated:
"It needs to be said (certainly not for the first time) that interrogatories and answers should be expressed in language of the most rigorous precision. This requirement is not mere pedantry. The nature and purpose of interrogatories and answers (being the seeking and the supply, respectively, of evidence in writing on oath) call for the strictest adherence to the letter of the words used. There is no place in interrogatories and answers for 'reading between the lines', adopting a liberal construction, or seeking the author’s intention rather than the meaning the words bear on their face. Unless this principle is kept in mind, interrogatories may easily become an unjustifiable cause of expense and delay."
Consideration of particular Interrogatories
It is convenient to set out the individual interrogatories (or groupings where appropriate) where the answers are challenged, the respondent's answers, the parties' arguments on the adequacies of answers, and finally my conclusion on each answer (or group).
I will follow the groupings of interrogatories used in the respondent's outline of argument presented on this application.
It should be noted at the respondent's counsel advised that the hearing that challenges to the answers for interrogatories 8(b) and (c) and 10(b) and (c) are now abandoned.
Section 3(1)(b) Assessment
Because both parties have made some general observations on Answers 1, 2 and 3, I propose setting out interrogatories 1 to 3 and answers supplied to these first; then to note the general comments on these three questions by either party. I will then outline and consider the particular comments of either party in relation to these three answers.
Interrogatories 1 - 3
1.Did the chief executive in the course of arriving at the decision under appeal determine or purport to determine a valuation of the unimproved value of the land as at 1 October 2002 pursuant to section 3(1)(b) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act) (the s.3(1)(b) assessment).
2.What is the amount of the s.3(1)(b) assessment.
3.How was the s.3(1)(b) determined or purportedly determined by the Chief Executive identifying and explaining:
(a)what factors were taken into account in undertaking the s.3(1)(b) assessment
(b)Any:
(i)comparable sale or property that was had regard to;
(ii)comparison or adjustment made to the valuation of the land in order to take account of such comparable sale of property.
Answers:
1.The Chief Executive, in the course of arriving at the decision under appeal, embarked upon a preliminary process of seeking to determine the unimproved value of the land as referred to in s.3(1)(b) of the Act but determined that making and adopting an assessment of the sum referred to in 3(2) was required to give effect to his valuation, and not by determining the capital sum for the hypothetical sale referred to in ss.3(1)(b) of the Act.
2.The unimproved value referred to in s.3(1)(b) of the Act as assessed by the Chief Executive was $16,000,000 assessed as referred to in answer to interrogatory 1. On the assumption that reference to a hypothetical sale referred to in ss.3(1)(b) of the Act is intended by use of the expression "the section 3(1)(b) assessment", there was no assessment of that kind.
3.In light of the answers to interrogatories 1 and 2 the preliminary process embarked on by the Chief Executive did not result in the determination of the unimproved value of the land as at 1 October 2002 pursuant to 3(1)(b) of the Valuation of Land Act. But in the course of that process the Chief Executive:
(a)had regard to factors (a) to (d) and (l), set out in the schedule 1 to the answers to these interrogatories, and
(b)had regard to the comparable sales of property set out in schedule 2 to the answers to interrogatories, but did not make any further comparison or adjustment to take account of such sales in light of the Chief Executive's determination referred to in answer to interrogatory 1 hereof.
Parties Submissions
Appellant
In relation to answers 1 to 3, the respondent has not given a direct answer as to whether a s.3(1)(b) valuation has been undertaken. The Chief Executive says both that no section 3(1)(b) assessment was undertaken and that the Chief Executive determined a value pursuant to s.3(1)(b). The Chief Executive is vested with the responsibility of arriving at a valuation in respect of the land. It must be known on what basis the valuation was undertaken. The answers are evasive and they are not direct, and hence contravene r.232(3).
In respect of answer 1:
(a)Section 3(1)(b) does not contemplate a "preliminary" process. Either the assessment was done, or it was not. The answer includes irrelevant material. It "prevents the person who asks for it from using it without having thrust upon him irrelevant material as part of it".
(b)Answer 1 says "to give effect to his valuation" (not to make his valuation), the chief executive adopted the sum referred to in s.3(2) of the Act. The words "give effect to" imply the existence of another value, but on one view that is inconsistent with the answers elsewhere.
(c)Section 3(1)(b) does not expressly refer to a "hypothetical sale". In answer 1, the respondent refers to a "hypothetical sale", then denies he performed such an exercise.
In respect of answer 2:
(a)The first sentence of answer 2 suggests a s.3(1)(b)value was ascertained (in the first half), then qualifies it in the second half.
(b)Answer 2 refers to reference to a hypothetical sale". There is no reference to "hypothetical sale" in the interrogatory, nor, expressly it, in s.3(1)(b).
In respect of answer 3(a):
(a)It is inappropriate to express answer 3 in terms of "in light of answers to interrogatories 1 & 2". It is well established that an answer to an interrogatory should stand alone, so it may properly be tendered without the introduction of other material. The questions are self sufficient, and so should be the answers.
(b)Interrogatory 3 did not ask details of any preliminary process. Having denied carrying out a s.3(1)(b) valuation, the respondent answers by saying what he did in regard to the start of one. This is impermissible: it prevents the appellant from being able to properly use proper answers.
(c)The answer does not state with sufficient particularity the factors taken into account in undertaking the 3(1)(b) assessment. It is not sufficiently precise to respond as the respondent has by stating regard was has to "location", "site area", "topography", "access" and "economic environment". In the context of the valuation, it is necessary to state what factors within those general heads were considered. Mr Scott expressed the view that this question was appropriate so that the appellants could gain an appreciation of the general approach taken by the Chief Executive (at [26]).
(d)It is not possible for the appellants to understand even in a general sense the respondent’s approach because the factors taken into account are expressed in general categories rather than as factors.
In respect of answer 3(b)(ii):
(a)The answer fails entirely to state the "comparison or adjustment" made to the land valuation as a consequence of the Chief Executive having regard to the comparable sales identified. No attempt at all is made to respond to this interrogatory.
(b)This interrogatory was one of those the Chief Executive agreed to answer. He should not be permitted now to resile from that position given the importance of this interrogatory to the appellant's understanding of the way in which the comparable sales were given effect to by the respondent in arriving at the valuation.
Respondent
The appellant reveals a failure to appreciate the nature and function of answers to interrogatories. It is not to the point to assert that a party ought to have done something differently; the answers are required to articulate what the party did in a responsive way to the interrogatory.
The answers to interrogatories 3(a), 3(b)(ii) are sufficient in the context of the issues in this appeal and the detail provided. The answers make it clear how the impugned valuations were arrived at. Issues of the detail of valuation judgment are appropriate for cross-examination and not these interrogatories. It is submitted that the complaints do not relate to any important matters.
No further answer has been shown to be necessary for the proper and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Conclusion
Counsel for the respondent submits interrogatories are to address what a party has done, not what they, on one argument, ought to have done. The latter is for further debate at the hearing. Also he submits that Interrogatories 1 to 3 have been considered and answered as a whole - hence some interaction and overlap. I consider both these submissions to be soundly based.
However, even with such allowances, there still appears to be some uncertainty in the answers provided. My appreciation of the thrust of the combined answers is that a preliminary assessment was made under s.3(1)(b) - looking at some sales evidence as a prelude to a hypothetical sale approach (although this term is not used as such in 3(1)(b).
On this preliminary approach, a figure of $16,000,000 was arrived at. However, as this was likely to be well below a s.3(2) valuation and s.3(2) provides the constraint that the determined figure should not be less than a s.3(2) valuation, the s.3(1)(b) was abandoned. If this is what was intended to be conveyed, it should be spelt out with more precision, addressing the concerns the appellant has raised in his submission.
Interrogatories No. 8(d), 8(e) and 10(d)
Look at the document annexed marked B and having done so:
8(d)As to the entry of "adjusted passing yield 9.5%" what were the factors that were taken into account in the identification of the adjusted passing yield and also in the assessment of the figure of 9.5%.
8(e)As to the entry of "risk loading", what were the factors which were taken into account in the identification of the risk loading and also in the assessment of the figure of 1.2%.
10(d)Similar in wording to 8(d) - within this grouping.
Answers
8(d)As the entry in the document marked Annexure "B" of adjusted passing yield 9.5%, the factors that were taken into account in the identification of the adjusted passing yield and also in the assessment of the figure of 9.5% were as follows:
(i)the factors set out in schedule 1 of this Statement, and
(ii)the Chief Executive’s assessment of the differences between the sales set out in Schedule 3 hereto and the properties the subject of appeals AV2003/0795 to 0806.
8(e)As to the entry in the document marked Annexure "B" of "risk loading 1.2%", the factors which were taken into account in the identification of the risk loading and also in the assessment of the figure of 1.2% were the factors set out in the preceding paragraph and the difference between the adjusted passing yield of 9.5% and the assessed passing yield of 8.3%.
10(d)A similar answer was provided as to 8(d).
Parties' Submission
Appellant
There are a number of points to be made about these answers:
(a)The interrogatories call for the identification of factors taken into account in arriving at the "adjusted passing yield" and "risk loading". Only general categories are identified (eg "economic environment", "notional absence of leases" and "nature of tenancies") without any level of detail as to the factors themselves.
(b)Similarly, the "Chief Executive's assessment of differences" between the sales in Schedule 3 and the properties the subject of these appeals is not responsive. The results of the Chief Executive's assessment must be provided. What are the relevant "differences"?
(c)Furthermore, it is not stated the extent to which the Chief Executive considered there were differences between the comparable sales and on what basis.
(d)There are many deficiencies in the manner in which the "factors" have been identified in Schedule 1:
(i)Take "topography". "Topography" means "detailed description, representation on map etc of natural and artificial features of a town, district etc" (the Concise Oxford Dictionary 7th Ed). We ask: what topographical features are relevant? Are they the features of the town or the district (in the Tetzner sense) at valuation date, or for example the topography of the site itself in its unimproved state.
(ii)Take "age of improvements". Does this mean "tangible", "intangible" or "tangible and intangible improvements"? The question is of real importance: the trading history of a centre contributes to goodwill (for example, the level of allegiance of a customer to a centre), and one would think the trading history, potentially, relevant to "risk adjustment", that is, the adjustment downwards (pursuant to s 3(2)) of value for goodwill from a let centre to a fully constructed but unlet centre. In any event, what about the age of improvements was taken into account?
(iii)Take "nature and condition of improvements". What, about the nature and condition of the intangible improvements was a relevant "factor", or of tangible improvements?
(iv)Item (m) assumes a "notional absence of leases". This reflects what the appellant thinks is the respondent's s 3(2) approach: take market value, make risk adjustment, leaving built but unoccupied centre, deduct identifiable intangible improvements. But:
·Item (h) says the nature of the tenancies must be taken into account: what tenancies? (If the assumption is they do not exist);
·Item (j) says the net income should be taken into account: net income from what? (The assumption is the tenancies do not exist).
(v)Take "economic environment". What is to be made of it?
(vi)Take Beenleigh Market Place sale 1999. What about the sale was relevant.
Respondent
The respondent argues that, when the orders for interrogatories were made for 8(d) and 10(d) amongst other sections, it was ordered that the respondent’s should reveal the factors that were taken into account in identification of "passing yield" and "risk loading" and then the assessment of "applied percentages" but not matters of weight or judgment involved.
The respondent now argues that the complaints in relation to 8(d), 8(e) and 10(d) are matters which seek to controvert the orders previously made.
Conclusion
In oral submissions, counsel for the appellant stressed the critical role of the "adjusted passing yield" in the overall scheme of these cases, given a s.3(2) methodology is likely to be the common valuation approach. From the evidence presently before the Court, this seems a most valid submission. It then becomes of importance to ascertain the factors that are considered in arriving at such "adjusted passing yield". While the respondent has provided an extensive list of such factors, the latter are, in the words of the respondent's counsel, a "model of succinctness". I consider more detail needs to be provided so such factors can be better appreciated by the appellant. There is difficulty, however, in specifying what additional information should be provided.
The following order, though somewhat general, should suffice for present purposes. I note counsel for the appellant does not nominate any precise orders, although he does provide some useful observations on the current vagueness of various factors as presently stated. Liberty to apply, of course, remains open if future difficulty arises.
In light of the above, the respondent should provide sufficient information on the factors listed in Schedule 1 to the Answer to Interrogatories so that an expert witness engaged by the appellant would understand fairly precisely what was being considered.
The weight attributed to particular factors or the interaction between factors are matters for later inclusion in expert reports and subsequent cross-examination. This condition is consistent with the initial order for interrogatories made by Mr Scott on 16 June 2004.
Interrogatories 8(f) and 10(f)
Look at the document annexed marked "B" and having done so:
8(f)Were the calculations shown in this page or any of them taken into account in making the decision, the subject of this appeal and if so, which of them were taken into account and in what ways?
Look at the document annexed marked "D: and having done so:
10(f)What was the differential, that is the percentage difference between the "passing yield" and the "adjusted passing yield" used in making the decision, the subject of this appeal?
Answer
8(f)On the assumption that reference to the formulae included in the Excel spreadsheet, of which the document annexed marked "B" is a "hard" copy, is intended by use of the expression "the calculations shown in this page", all of the calculations shown in this page were taken into account in making the decision the subject of this appeal. The calculations shown in this page were taken into account to provide for the application of the adjusted passing yield assessed at 9.5% to the information provided to the Chief Executive under the appellant's s.35A application as to tangible and intangible improvements (which was adopted and applied by the Chief Executive as identified on the document annexed marked "C:) together with adjustment for the increase in rates and land tax implicit in the assessment so made by the Chief Executive.
Parties' Submissions
Appellant
8(f) It is not stated the way in which the calculations on the document identified as document "B" were taken into account. No attempt is made to provide an answer to this question. This, too, is an agreed interrogatory yet the Chief Executive's response is that all the figures on the document were taken into account. There is no response as to the ways in which the figures were taken into account. The answer does not make sense.
10(f) The answers do not appear to relate to the question posed in any way. It is merely a repetition of the answer to 8(f). There is no attempt to respond to the question asked in this case.
Respondent
The respondent makes no specific written reply to these two interrogatories.
Conclusion
8(f) At the application hearing counsel for the appellant addressed a range of inputs to Attachment B and commented on how they interacted to give a final unimproved value and to the extent that uncertainty as to how these figures were used still exists. Clarification of such seems more appropriately dealt with at subsequent expert report stages or following oral evidence, rather than be subject to further interrogatories at this stage.
10(f) There appears to be a typographical error in the answer supplied here. All that is required is a clear statement of the differential used. Counsel for the respondent in oral submissions stated that the percentage is 1.2% (Transcript p.48). This should be confirmed in a formal answer.
Interrogatories 11(a) and 11(b) - Comparable Sales and Other Details
Identify and explain what account, if any, was taken by the Chief Executive in arriving at the decisions under appeal of:
11(a)Comparable sales identifying each relevant sale and the account taken of it;
11(b)Valuations of any comparable properties identifying each such property and the valuations.
Answers
11(a)The comparable sales taken into account by the Chief Executive in arriving at the decision under appeal were the sales set out in Schedule 3 hereto. The sale price states capitalisation parameters set out therein and the factors set out in Schedule 1 concerning the comparable sales were taken into account in adopting and assessing an adjusted passing yield of 9.5%.
11(b)The Chief Executive in arriving at the decision under appeal took into account the unimproved valuations as at 1 October 2002 of each of the properties the subject of appeals AV2003/0795 to 0806. The account taken of such other improved valuations was of a broad kind only, but by having reference to such factors set out in Schedule 1 concerning the subject property and each of the other appeal properties.
Parties' Submissions
Appellant
11(a) Was an agreed interrogatory. However, it is not stated what account was taken of the comparable sales identified. Furthermore, it is not sufficient merely to point to the very general categories in Schedule 1 and not identify the factors which is what the interrogatory seeks.
11(b) Was held by Mr Scott to be appropriate given that it arose out of matters referred to in the Chief Executive's statement of reasons. It is not a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to brush it aside saying the account taken of the sales was of a "broad kind only". It is necessary to go further and state, albeit generally, what account was taken of each comparable sale.
Respondent
The respondent argues that the answers are sufficient in the context of the issues of this appeal and the detail provided. The answers make it clear how the impugned valuations were arrived at. Issues of the detail of valuation judgment are appropriate for cross-examination and not these interrogatories. It is submitted that the complaints do not relate to any important matters.
Conclusion
The additional information sought on these two areas, that is on sales and other valuations, relates more to the valuation judgment and weight and is more appropriately dealt with in expert reports and responses and cross-examination at the hearing.
Orders
1.In regard to Interrogatories 1 - 3, the answers should be spelt out with more precision, having regard to concerns the appellant has raised in its submission.
2.In regard to Interrogatories 8(d), 8(e) and 10(d), the respondent should provide sufficient information on the factors listed in Schedule I of the Answer to Interrogatories so that an expert witness engaged by the appellant would understand fairly precisely what was being considered.
3.In regard to Interrogatory 10(f), the respondent should confirm the percentage applied in a formal response.
BR O’CONNOR
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR
0
1
0