Commissioner of Valuations v Hall
Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
Judge | Lewis, J. |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1963 |
Neutral Citation | JM 1963 CA 19 |
Docket Number | Misc.No.7 of 1963 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
Date | 01 January 1963 |
Court of Appeal
Lewis, J.; Duffus, J.; Henriques, J.
Misc.No.7 of 1963
Messrs. K. Rattray and A.C. Mundell for appellant
Mr.Norman Hill for respondent.
Real Property - Land — Valuation
This appeal raises the questions whether and to what extent it is permissible, in valuations made under the Land Valuation Law No.73 of 1956, to take into account any potential use for which the land may be capable of being developed. The land with which the case is concerned is Allspice Grove, some 31 acres and 19 poles in extent situate on the sea coast in the parish of Portland, in the Boston district about 9 miles from Port Antonio and belonging to the respondent. At the prescribed date of valuation, 1 st of October 1959, it was planted in the coconuts and pimento, both in poor condition. In 1949 the respondent bought it from the late Errol Flynn for £250, and when in February 1960 the Commissioner of Valuation assured it at £12,000, he promptly filed his objection. His ground was too high as the land has a high rock-bound coast with no beach or access thereto, that 50% of the land is honeycomb rocks and of no value for tourist purposes, and the remainder only suitable for coconuts. He suggested a valuation of £300. The Commissioner disallowed his objection and he asked for a review by the Valuation Board under section 22 of the law. His appeal was heard by the board, which, after hearing evidence and visiting the locus, on 29 th August, 1962 reduced the valuation to £4,500 and awarded him his costs. Against this decision the Commissioner now appeals.
Before the Board, the respondent's case was that the nature of his land was such that it had very little value. He said:–
“I would not regard it as suitable for growing coconuts.
“I would not regard it suitable for building because that land full of sea balls. Plenty of them right under the land. Sea balls extend right up to next corner; about 3/4 of land in sea balls. If you go there you hear the sea rolling under the land. Coming right up to parochial track sea corner right up there. The 31 acres a suspended piece of rock overhanging the sea. I have lost several beasts there, dropped into holes.“
His witnesses, Clarence A. Shelley and Clarence Farr, auctioneers and valuers of five and seven years standing, respectively, did not entirely support him. They considered that some five to eight acres of the sea coast was honeycomb rock with no soil and of little value. The rest of the land they considered not good agricultural land but suitable for coconuts and for pimento and limes.Shelley, who for fifteen years has been manager of the nearby San San residential development, considered unsuitable for residential development, though inexpensive buildings might be erected. His reasons were that the land is too level, without any fine building sites, the coastline too rocky and without access to the sea, no sandy expensive to develop because oh absence of soil and inadequacy of water supply in the district.Farr, however admitted that a low income residential development might be successful, though he thought the land would be hard to sell.
Shelley and Farr both valued the land as suitable only for goats and quarrying. Shelly fixed the unimproved value at £1,850, with improvements at £3,145. Farr thought that unimproved it was worth £1,800 to £2,000, improved £3,000. Neither witness took into account any potentiality for use as building land.
The Commissioner's case was that the existing use of the land was not its best use, that it had a potential use as building land and was suitable for subdivision as a middle income residential development, and that it should be valued accordingly. His witness, Clifford Hemmings, a qualified construction engineer of five years experience, gave evidence to this said that he had arrived at his valuation of £12,000 by taking into account of recent sales of lands in the area which he considered comparable to Allspice Grove both in situation and in topography, including a parcel of some eight acres of coast land (not part of the land in dispute) sold by the respondent in January 1960 for £30,000 By using another method he had same figure of £12,000 This involved imposing upon the land a notional development by subdivision into 41 lots of varying sizes. He had made enquiries, he found that there was a general demand in the area for land for residential purposes and he thought that such a development of Allspice Grove would be patronized by people from all over Jamaica. The sale of these lots, he estimated, would gross revenue of £34,600. From this sum, expenses and profits estimated at £13,100 and £6,000, respectively, were deducted leaving a net sum of £15,500. It being assumed that development would take a year and sale and collection of purchase money a further three years, this sum was discounted at 8% the approximately £12,000, representing the present value of the land as land all suitable for a residential sub-divisional development.
The Board's findings of fact set out in their Reasons for decision dated 12 th November, 1562, may be summarized as follows: -
- The sea coast 200 feet long, consists of cliffs and 20' to 40” high. 2. About five acres of the sea coast land are honeycomb. 1. The rest of the land contains little depth of soil abounds in stones and rocks 4. The yield from cultivation is poor and the trees are in poor condition 5. The land is situate in an area where at the date of the valuation residential and other developments existed or were contemplated or taking place. 6. No rapid development was taking place in the area. 7. Land sales were slow.
Although there is no express finding to this effect, a fair deduction from findings 2, 3 and 4 above, that the land is not good agricultural land. There is also no finding as to its potentiality for use as building land; but this Court Mr.Hill, who appeared for the respondent, conceded that the land does possess such potentiality and is physically capable of subdivision for purposes of residential development.
This admission is in my view justified by the evidence Shelley and Farr.
The Board rejected the valuations of Shelley and Farr as too low, being based upon suitability of the land for use only as a goat run or quarry. It is not disputed that they were right in so doing for these valuations did not even take into account its existing agricultural use.
The board also rejected Hemmings valuation of £ 12,000. In so far as this valuation was reached on the basis of comparable sales, the Board, while recognising this as a valid method of valuation, found themselves unable to derive any assistance from the sales deposed to. For so holding they gave three reasons: first, in some cases, that they found the land not truly comparable; secondly, in all cases the prices represent the improved value the land sold and no evidence was led dissecting the sales, as to enable the Board to arrive at unimproved values which could be used by way of comparison; thirdly, they considered the prices inflated because the lands were bought by or on behalf of foreigners for speculative or investment purposes. It may be useful to say a word about the second of these reasons.
It has long been recognised that an important factor to be taken into consideration in valuing land is the price at which the land in the neighbourhood is being sold voluntarily, and it is usual, wherever possible of such sales to be led. The sales must, however, be of lands which are comparable, that is so similar in their situation, relative position, and other circumstances bearing on their value, as to make the sale of them evidence which would properly guide the Board in estimating the value of the land in question.Further, where the value which the Board has to determine is the unimproved value of the land, it must be shown that the prices paid are in respect of the unimproved value of the lands sold, or, where that is not the case, the sales must be dissected to enable the court to arrive at the unimproved value of the land in question unless it is known to what extent the price has been affected by the existence of these improvements. See Collins, The Valuation of Property Compensation and Land Tax, 3 rd edition, pages 59,70 and the cases there cited; and Tooheys v. Valuer General [1925] A.C.439.In the instant case the Board was therefore right in holding that the evidence of sales of lands said to be comparable, being merely of the improved value of those, without further evidence of the character and value of the improvements, could not properly be use as a guide to the unimproved value of Allspice Grove.
With regard to Hemmings second method valuation, based upon a notional subdivision for residential development, the Board was of the opinion that in valuations under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial