EXCESSIVE VALUATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20244, 2 May 1929, Page 14

EXCESSIVE VALUATION.

SUGAR COMPANY'S APPEAL.

ASSESSORS DISREGARD COURT.

EXPLICIT ORDER NOW ISSUED.

Judgment was given by Mr. Justice Blair yesterday for the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, Limited (Mr. Richmond), ir its appeal against the assessment placed by the Valuer-General on a tidal mud-flat leased by the company at Birkenhead. "It is obvious that the Assessment Court has disregarded the evidence, and that the assessors evidently require plain directions bofore they are able to appreciate their duty," said His Honor

One phase of the matter, had already been the subject matter of a decision by Mr. Justice Reed. After stating that the correct method of ascertaining the value of the lessee's interest was that laid down in Duthie v. Valuer-General. Mr. Justice Reed directed the Assessment Court to ascertain and determine the value of the appellant's interest in the unimproved value of the land in the manner indicated in his judgment. The unimproved value fixed by the Assessment Court when the matter previously came before the Supreme Court was £1660. By a majority, the court, purporting to act upon the principles directed by the Supreme Court, fixed the valuation at £ISOO. The president of the court dissented. Only Evidence of Value. In giving judgment Mr. Justice Blair said that in support of the original valuation evidence was given by a Government valuer, but nowhere did he indicate any idea of his valuation on the basis directed by the Supremo Court. Upon the company's side there was the evidence oi three well-known valuers of Auckland, all of whom deposed to tho value disregarding entirely the special use to which the land was put by the company. Their evidence, therefore, was the only real evidence of value upon the basis directed by the Supreme Court. " It being therefore clear that any evidence brought in support of the valuation was evidence founded on an entirely wrong basis, and it being equally clear that the only evidence tendered to the Court upon the proper basis of valuation was the evidence tendered by the company, it follows that the assessors, in coming to the conclusion that they did in fixing the value at £ISOO, must have disregarded the only evidence before them," said His Honor. " Whether this is due tc wilfulnesu or to inability to appreciate their proper functions is immaterial The fact unquestionably is that the judgment of this Court has been entirely disregarded. The utmost value placed upon the leasehold interest of the appellant company by any of the valuers was the sum of £300; and it is obvious, therefore, that the assessors, in fixing a value far in excess of such utmost value, have taken it upon themselves to arrive at their conclusion upon a basis not authorised by law." Limit of Assessment. The first ground of appeal was therefore established. The second ground of appeal was that there was no eyidence to justify the assessment of £ISOO in respect of t'he company's leasehold interest, and on this ground also His Honor found that the appellant was entitled to succeed. Tho third ground of appeal was really embodied in the first. The Supreme Court was entitled to make such order as it thought fit, but it was highly inconvenient for it to attempt to fix a sum. " It will simplify the matter," said His Honor, " if 1 make an order remitting the case to the Assessment Court for reassessment on th- evidence already given, with a direction from this Court to reassess at such sum as they think fit, not exceeding the maximum valuation given by any valuer called on behalf of the appellant company. This I do. The appellant will be allowed costs of the appeal, £lO, 103. and the fees of Court."