Richardson (William) and Dorris Richardson & others v Commissioner of Land Valuation
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Coram: Courtenay Orr J. |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1999 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1999] 5 JJC 0604 |
| Court | Revenue Court (Jamaica) |
| Date | 06 May 1999 |
CIVIL PROCEDURE - Grounds of appeal - Leave to amend - Factors to be considered
This is a summons by the appellants for leave to amend the grounds of appeal herein.
The notice and grounds of appeal were filed and served on the Respondent as far back as 19th July, 1996.
The appeal arises out of decision by the Respondent on 25th April 1996, in which she dismissed the objections by the Appellants to valuations placed on their respective properties, which are all part of a housing scheme known as Woodlands Court, on Shortwood Road in St Andrew.
Woodlands Court, like many other townhouse schemes consists of a number of townhouses, and common areas which contains roads, sewage works, and other amenities which support the townhouses. Each owner has a registered title which in the instant case indicates that the holder thereof has a fee simple in either 1320 square feet of land or 1508 square feet of land, plus l/29th undivided share in the common areas. In the instant case the common areas are made up of some lots 4 of land.
The hearing began as far back as 29th October 1997. Since then the case continued with some 21 further days of evidence by various experts, and the Respondent herself gave evidence. Each side has closed its case.
The matter was adjourned on 9th April last for the parties to make written submissions.
When the time for the Respondent to have done so had almost expired, the Appellants filed this notice seeking leave to amend their grounds of appeal.
The provision governing this exercise is found in Rule 6 (a) of the Revenue Court Rules 1972. Rule 6 states in part:
"6. A Notice of Appeal may be amended:
(a) without leave....
(b) at any time by leave of the Court or Judge."
The grounds of appeal read as follows:
-
"1. That the value assessed by the Commissioner of Land Valuation for the unimproved value of land situate at Lot 27, 61 Shortwood Road, Kingston 8, in the parish of St Andrew and registered at Volume 1177 Folio 664 of the Register Book of Titles, as at 1st April 1992, is unreasonable and excessive.
-
2. That the Respondent erred in law and on fact when she decided that the unimproved value of the land situate at Lot 27, 61 Shortwood Road, Kingston 8 in the parish of St Andrew and registered at Volume 1177 Folio 664, having an area of 1,320 square feet, was Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000) and not One Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($126,500).
-
3. That the Respondent erredin law in that she used irrelevant considerations to arrive at the valuation of the unimproved value, for the purposes of the Land Valuation Act, of the premises at Lot 27, of 61 Shortwood Road in the parish of St Andrew.
The Appellants aver that a comparison of Woodlands Court with other similar properties suggest that the valuation of Woodlands Court is too high.
The Respondent rejects this contentioon and states at paragraph 2(d) of the Statement of Case that:
(d) "in considering the Appellants' objection, the Respondent took into account, inter alia, the roadworks, telecommunication systems and other amenities surrounding the subject lot; and the value of other multiple residential lots copmparable to the subject lot in size and geographic location. The Respondent was mindful too, of the second proviso to the definition of "unimproved value" in Section 2 of the Land Valuation Act; and after applying all the established rules and principles of making valuations, not only of land generally, but in particular, of multiple residential lots, disallowed the Appellant's objection and confirmed the valuation made.
In their reply the Appellants deny the Respondent's contention and state:
"...that the Respondent erred in that it considered, inter alia amenities which are part of the common area owned by the Appellants and other proprietors in the same housing scheme. These amenities were established by the Appellants and other proprietors of the scheme and are continuously maintained by them. The Appellants aver that any such amenities are improvements to land owned...
To continue reading
Request your trial