John Ware represented the respondent, instructed by Clayton Utz.
This case concerned a challenge to the Valuer-General’s valuation of land owned by the appellant. The appellant raised two grounds in its challenge. First, that the land was used for farming; and alternatively, that the land was used as a single dwelling house. The issues before the Court were whether the management of agistment agreements by a third-party farming manager on the land formed part of a farming business; whether the farming business was the dominant use of the land; and whether the farming business was carried out for a profit.
On the first issue, President Stilgoe found that the management of agistment agreements was to be treated as a separate business, and accordingly, should be excluded from the determination of the third issue as to whether the farming business was carried out for a profit. As to the second issue, President Stilgoe held that the farming business was the land’s dominant use, owing to the continuous grazing that occurred on parts of the land, in contrast to its limited development for future subdivision. On the final issue, it was found that the farming business was capable of making a profit and was thus properly characterised as being carried out for a profit.
The appeal was allowed and the value of the land was reduced.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
