VALUATION OF PROPERTY

Northern Advocate, 20 March 1931, Page 3

VALUATION OF PROPERTY

AUCKLAND PRESS CASK. I DEC 1 SloX RESERVED. (Per Press Association. —Copyright.) WELLINCTON, This D;iy. The Court of Appeal yesterday con(Lined (he hearing of (he motion by New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd., that ,-'ir Waller St ringer ks valuation of the laud and buildings of Sun Newspapers Ltd., Auckland, which were agreed to be purchased by N.Z. Newspapers, Ltd., be set. aside or remitted back to him for re-consideration. Air Norfherul't, in. opposing the motion, said the ease for Sun Newspapers. Ltd. avou ld be dealt with under two headings:—(l) Whether there was, in tact, any mistake in principle on the part, of the arbitrator; (-) Whether even if there were, the court would be entitled to interfere. He would deal with the former point and Air Cooke ■with the latter. On the first heading, Air Northeroft contended that the onus was on an applicant avlio came into court and claimed that Avroug principles had been adopted by the arbitrator, to satisfy the court that that Avas so. From the closest scrutiny of the award, it waa dilUcult to sec that any particular principles had been adopted by Sir 'Walter, but, even if any particular principles could be ascertained by reference to the affidavit files, there Avas no evidence before Ihe court that Sir Waltei had in any nay violated the principles advocated by Air Johnstone as binding an arbitrator in making a valuation. Tho essence of the applicant’s criticism of the award a\ as that Sir Walter Avas bound by the actual market value, but there was nothing to slioav that ho had ignored the market value, or the market condition;;, existing at tlie | time, nor Avas there 1 anything Avhich would in for that he had .done anything different Lain taking everything relevant inlo consideration. Mr Cooke, in the court, said the

.■ionvim’ni for -sale and purchase left sir Walter free to value in any reasonable or recognised way. In particular, ii did nut, fur in.-dam-e; oblige liim to , rudder wluii the property would ha\ IVU-hed on iii>’ market. But. ;;i(v tliar the reference obliged him t onusidev what would have been obtain* id on (In' market, it clearh gave him m adopt any reasonable or i.-■cognised mm had of ascertaining thnt i. - .;trkej value. There was. moreover, ;u,!hing in the arbitrator’s affidavit which indiealed that he considered nr n, id that ij■ i .iMi-ivi existed, unless the applicant could show that he cdalld flot

possible be Justified in holding that a market did exist. Cost, loss depreciation, was a recognised method of ascertaining tin' current market values. Mealing with Mr INorthcroft’s second point, Mr Cooke submitted that even it a mistake had been made by Sir Waiter within the ambit of his reference, the court could not correct it because (J) the mistake was not of the kind which would induce the court to interfere; (d) there was no express admission bv the arbitrator of a conscious mistake and (.’V) the arbitrator had not asked the court to correct the mistake. The court reserved its decision.