Fisher v. Deputy Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (NSW)

20 CLR 242

---

(Decision by: Powers J) Court:

Judges: Rich J
Isaacs J
Gavan Duffy J

Powers J

Judgment date: 3 September 1915

Sydney

---

Decision by:
Powers J

I agree with the judgment just delivered by my brother Isaacs, for himself and my brother Gavan Duffy, and with the reasons given for it, except (1) the statement that the method suggested in the judgment "is really the only practical way, at least in the majority of instances, of ascertaining the unimproved value of a station property," and (2) the method laid down for ascertaining the added value caused by ring-barking and clearing on a sheep station.

The principles upon which the learned primary Judge should have arrived at the unimproved value in this case are, in my opinion, set out in the judgment of the Full Court of this Court, which consisted of five Judges, in Morrison's Case ^[F15] . The way he arrives at it must depend on the evidence submitted by practical men about the particular property in question-Morrison's Case , as stated, only gives the starting point in each case.

From what the learned Judge has expressly said in the judgment in question, he appears to have arrived at the unimproved value of the land on the principles laid down in Morrison's Case allowing, if anything, more than need have been allowed for added value, on the evidence submitted to him.

The learned Judge said in Keogh's Case ^[F16] , at p. 259:"I have taken into account the benefit which arises from improvements-the result of the work of man and the operations of nature-amongst others, ringing, picking up and burning off, and the improvement of the pasturage by grassing and other methods, and the consolidation of the land from the judicious running of stock. Some of these improvements are progressive: as to ringing, for example, none can state the exact period which must elapse before the full benefit of the work will accrue. The period will vary according to the nature of the land and of the timber, the locality of the land, and whether it is capable of being used as wheat or grazing land, and whether the improvement is maintained, e.g., by suckering. Each case presents different facts, and it is impossible to lay down a rule of universal application."

I regret that I feel bound to differ from my learned brothers on the two points mentioned in the judgment.

After practical experience extending over ten years, I am satisfied that it is impossible to lay down a rule for universal application throughout this great Commonwealth for ascertaining the unimproved value of a sheep station, or any other description of property, or for ascertaining in every case the added value at the date of the assessment of clearing or ring-barking. Each case must be determined on the special evidence of practical men, capable of assisting the Court, submitted by the parties to enable the Court to find "the added value which the improvements give to" the unimproved value of "the land at the date of valuation irrespective of the cost of the improvements."

This Court cannot, in my opinion, safely go beyond laying down the principles it has laid down in Spencer's Case ^[F17] and in Morrison's Case ^[F18] , and dealing specially, on appeal, with any objections raised in any particular case to the assessment of the Commissioner, or the valuation of the Crown in resumptions.

It appears to me impossible to correctly state the only practical way, in a majority of cases, to ascertain the improved value of a station property in every part of the Commonwealth. For instance, no one method of valuing will be suitable for sheep stations in Tasmania with its steady rainfall; in the dry areas of Australia, where the rainfall is from five to ten inches a year; in artesian areas and non-artesian areas; on the Darling Downs (Queensland), where the rainfall is from twenty to thirty inches a year, and the land in its natural state is able to carry the ordinary number of sheep to the acre; and in the northern parts of Australia, where the rainfall exceeds, in some parts, sixty inches a year.

I admit that Morrison's Case only deals with principles, and is only a starting point in each case; but I do not think it safe for this Court to do more than lay down principles, leaving the primary Judges to apply them to the evidence submitted in the cases in which they have to decide the unimproved value.

It may be possible in many districts to ascertain the unimproved value from comparable land sales adjoining, or in the vicinity of, the land in question. The carrying capacity of one sheep to the acre near a railway may be the best way to test the improved value; in Central Australia it would not be so, for want of transport.

For the reasons I have mentioned, while I think it right that, in this and in the other cases of appeals against valuations in which judgments are to be delivered in this Court today, this Court should deal with the special objections raised in the respective cases, I cannot see my way to concur in the view that the method suggested by my learned brothers is the only practical method, in a majority of cases, of ascertaining the value of sheep stations in all parts of the Commonwealth.

Further, I cannot agree that the method suggested for ascertaining the added value caused by ring-barking and clearing on a sheep station should be fixed by this Court for the guidance of Courts in the future whenever the added value for ring-barking is to be ascertained. There are many ways practical men can suggest of arriving at the added value.

It is the added value at the date of assessment that must be ascertained. Profits caused by such an improvement (or any other improvement) are dependent on management, or mismanagement, understocking for want of means, over-stocking for quick returns, wasteful expenditure, and similar matters.

Ring-barking may be neglected after profits have been received, and the added value at the time of the assessment may be small compared with that of previous years.

The primary Judge should ascertain the added value in each case on the evidence of practical men capable of assisting him to arrive at that value.

I agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.