VALUATIONS OF RURAL LEASEHOLD AND LICENSED LAND
Simon
A. de Garis[1]
_______________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the structure and methodology for leasing of rural land from a 2007 study in North Eastern Victoria, Australia, with a view to establishing appropriate valuation methodology for practitioners dealing with this area of practice.
KEYWORDS
Market rental. Land Tenure. Lease and Licence. Native title. Rural Land. Valuation methodology. North East Victoria.
_______________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Most agricultural land within the higher rainfall, closely-settled area of Australia is held under freehold title. Most in the drier pastoral area used for some form of agriculture or grazing is held under various forms of lease and licence from State or Territory governments. Traditionally, freehold farms have been owner-occupied with little land leased on a market-rental basis: there is, however, now a trend to leasing land from the owners of freehold land. This in part reflects an ageing farm population, financial difficulties stemming from a decade of drought on the eastern seaboard - most likely related to climate change; redefining of what constitutes economic farming units; and, (in many districts) an uncertain market for rural land. Those wishing to remain efficient producers are actively looking at all options including leasing to increase productivity, and reduce risk.
The valuation of less than freehold interests is of regional importance in Australian valuation practice, and yet there has been comparatively little research done in the area. The key areas reviewed by the paper are market rental valuations of rural land; the valuation of land held under lease, on varying terms and conditions; and, the issues and complexities faced in relation to Native title, claims for which may arise when land is held under less-than-freehold situations.
One crucial question to be addressed in this paper is ÒHow do the parties bargaining in a fully informed, armsÕ length transaction, negotiate an overall price per hectare for a market rental of rural land?Ó Another is ÒHow do valuers approach the task of valuing leasehold or licence interests, where the rental may often be well below market or economic rental levels?Ó
The area of leased and licensed land in Victoria is a small portion of the total area given over to freehold or owner occupied farms in Victoria. A total of 43,689 tenants control 1,064,004 hectares of government-owned land – some 4.7% of the StateÕs total area. As there is no central registry or database for private leases, it is not known how many private leases exist, or what percentage of the State is under lease. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that only a small proportion is currently leased in the private market, but that the area is likely to increase as farm demographics and agricultural economics change.
At the time of European agricultural and pastoral settlement of the Australian interior, from the second quarter of the nineteenth century, there were options made available for settlers to take up the land either as freehold, or as leasehold. The issue of title to land was a complex political one, and as a result of the hold established over vast tracts of land by a group called ÒsquattersÓ[2] ordinary people were effectively locked out of rural areas until State governments enacted land legislation. In the south-eastern State of Victoria, this did not occur until the 1860s, and even then early attempts at land alienation were hijacked by the squatting interests. By 1869, however, land was more freely available and the power and influence of the squattocracy was diminished. That influence and power was gained as a result of early wool booms, fuelled by the demand for wool in industrial England.
In relation to any Crown
land, Native title and any potential for claims, must be taken into
consideration. Native title is the recognition by Australian law that some
Indigenous people have rights and interests to their land that come from their
traditional laws and customs. Native title rights and interests differ from
Indigenous land rights in that the source of land rights is a grant of title
from government. The source of Native title rights and interests is the system
of traditional laws and customs of the Native title holders themselves.
The Native Title Act 1993 (Cwth.) was effected following the
landmark High Court of Australia case, Mabo and Others v The State of Queensland (No. 2), (1991-2) 175 CLR. This case tested
whether Native title to land was extinguished by annexation by the Crown, as
well as other important principles such as the concept of Terra Nullius (a belief that the land when taken in the
name of the Crown in the late eighteenth century was unoccupied and that no
rights to land existed at that time), tenures and estates in real property, the
effect on Native title, and land over which Native title exists.
The North East region of Victoria was initially sparsely populated as a result of gold discoveries in the 1850s around the Wangaratta (Ovens) area, but was quickly engulfed by the spread of agricultural activity that followed the passage of the land legislation, in particular the Land Act 1869, 33 Vict. No. 358. The act set out the administrative procedures under which freehold title – or Crown leasehold in perpetuity or lesser terms – could be granted by the Crown. Would-be settlers selected the land they wanted, and then applied for a licence to occupy that land. In addition to paying an annual license fee, they were then required to undertake certain improvements to the land. Once these conditions were satisfied, settlers were able to take out a lease, which involved a purchase rental – initially over ten years, but later extended to twenty years. After the full amount of £1 or 2AUD per acre was paid, freehold title was gained. .
At the same time as land was being taken up by individual settlers – or selectors as they were known – the old squatting runs were curbed in size, mostly back to 640 acres or 259 hectares, or they simply disappeared as the operators were unable to make the profits previously enjoyed from land that was either occupied for free, or with a minimum charge to the government. The period also saw expansion of the railway network, wire fencing, and unfortunately a rapid and disastrous spread of rabbits as well as European weed species.
Over the following 140 years, the North East region of Victoria has been developed for mixed farming, with three major urban centres and numerous smaller townships. The region covers some 20,000 square kilometres, and has a population of 87,000 people. 62% of the population resides within the two main centres of Wodonga and Wangaratta. Approximately 61% of the region is public or Crown Land, used for forestry, conservation and recreation. This area is generally not leased out to individuals, although there is some commercial activity within it, either tourism-related or timber-related. 39% is private, or freehold, land used for beef, dairying and horticultural enterprises. Sheep grazing is found on the western slopes and plains of the region, where the growing season is shorter.
The Ovens Murray Statistical Division encompasses the North East Region. It contains five of the seven municipalities (local government areas) which make up the region. The table clearly shows that the largest economic contributor is livestock production: sheep, beef cattle and dairying. Horticulture is significant, as is shown, although it should be noted that tobacco was a sunset industry, with production ceasing in 2006. It has largely been supplanted over several decades by grape production. The major grain crops are wheat, oats, canola, triticale, barley and lupins. In addition to the land uses listed in the table below, forestry contributed $213 million per annum, and tourism is a further important contributor to the gross revenue of the region.
The case study area for this research is around Lake Hume, upstream of the main centre of Albury-Wodonga. This particular part of North East Victoria has been chosen as a case-study area because there is a higher aggregation of rented land compared to other parts of Victoria, where it tends to be scattered. That means that greater levels of comparison between rented and freehold land can be achieved within this geographic area, and outcomes from the study can then be applied elsewhere.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Eves (2000) observed – perhaps complained - that ÒÉrural property
in Australia has received minimal attention by property researchers in
comparison to the extensive research attention given to Australian commercial
and residential property marketsÓ.. Although any review of available literature
shows that to be the case, parallels can, however, be drawn from those works
aimed at commercial markets. Commercial leases have mandatory codes. In
Victoria for example leases in shopping centres are covered by the Retail
Leases Act 2003, but there is no specific legislation for rural leases or
licences, nor is there a code of practice regarding the renting of rural lands.
One of the important issues attaching to any lease situation is the matter of
rent reviews and the practice to be adopted in the case of dispute .In Eureka Funds
Management Limited v Freehills Services Pty Ltd [2006] VSC 461 (8 December 2006)
where
there was extensive discussion as to the distinction between current market
rental – or face rent – and current market rental value – or
effective rent. The precedent provided is of relevance in this research, given
that the face rent is that which appears in the lease documentation, whilst the
effective rent is the market rental discounted for any incentives offered. In
deciding on the question ÒDid these two terms have the same meaning?Ó the court
held them to be different, and upheld the principles attaching to the different
definitions and meanings. In a rural property rental review, the lease terms
and any incentives given to a lessee would require careful consideration, and
clear instructions to the valuer would be required. In the past the concept of
lease incentives in the rural market has not apparently existed to any extent,
if at all. In difficult financial times the matter may well arise. What is
clearly highlighted from the Eureka decision is that the definitions
of lease terms and the intention of the parties when they struck the bargain
are of paramount importance to the valuer.
In a recent decision, Programme Holdings Pty. Ltd. -v- van Gogh
Holdings Pty. Ltd. [2009] WASC 79 (31 March
2009) the issue at test was if a rent review should be based in the highest and
best use of a property, or the restricted current use. In his decision (at ¤29)
Beech, J. noted that the valuer was required to take into consideration three
matters: first, the best current open market annual rental value that can
reasonably be obtained for the premises; secondly, the current open market
annual rental values of comparable commercial premises; and, thirdly, any
permanent structural or other improvements to the premises installed at the
lessee's expense and which the lessee is not permitted to remove at the
expiration of the lease.
The rent review was to be decided on the highest and best use of the property, not its current use. The inference from this for rural property is where a lease may restrict land use – for example to only grazing of livestock and no cropping, a situation that has in the past been common. Valuable principles of lease term interpretation were enunciated in the Programme Holdings case, and would serve to illuminate difficulties in disputes in the case of rural lease or licence.
It would not be unreasonable to expect that the lease value should reflect the earning capacity of the land. In that respect one of the most authoritative series of works has been those done by Eves (2000, 2003, 2007, 2008). In 2000 Eves suggested that for New South Wales, rural land investment (based on sales for the period 1991 to 1999) showed an average return of 5.3%. There were regional variations to this figure. Land values are underpinned by net returns, so it should reasonably be expected that there would be a close relationship between land values and market rentals, and that over a period where land values rose, rentals should follow. In 2003 Eves returned to the theme, analysing capital and income performance of the New South Wales rural land market. Using farm survey results from 1990 to 2000, he found that net income per hectare varied from $3.14 in 1993 to $14.73 in 1999. When the capital growth is added to the income return, the total return varied from – 0.31% in 1999 to 24.02% in 2000. There is clearly an indication here as to the volatility of farming in Australia.
One important decision that needs to be considered in relation to the Study Area is that in Bullivant v The Minister, handed down in 1936 just after the completion of the Hume Dam. The judge sought to quantify the impact of flooding on land, basing his compensation assessment on the time that the land was inundated. This is an ongoing productivity issue for leased land on the edge of the dam, and whilst over the last few years seasonal conditions have caused the problem to be remote, it can still occur. Land that was below the full supply level was held to be permanently damaged and compensation for the full value of the land was awarded. There may be some seasonal grazing possible on the land, but improved pasture would not survive periodic inundation. Another part was higher than the full supply level, and would only be affected by peak floods. This area was valued on the basis of lost grazing time, and detrimental effect on pasture, and compensation was assessed on the basis of one-third of market value. There was a third section at a higher level, which would not flood, but the easement applied to the land caused a Òblot on titleÓ. Compensation for this area was assessed at ten percent of the market value. There have been no known cases in the area altering the Bullivant decision.
In summary, it is clear that in Australia, at least, there is a dearth of research being done into rural property, including in relation to leasehold interests. Whilst there has been work done in this area overseas (Whitehead R.G. 1997 RICS and Farm Bencmarking RICS May 2005) there are structural and legislative reasons why the parallels cannot be as easily drawn as might otherwise be apparent.
CASE STUDY AREA
Although there has been recent agreement between States as to the constitution and authority of the Murray Darling Basin Commission, North East VictoriaÕs water resources remain under the control of a statutory body, Goulburn Murray Water. Sixteen kilometres upstream of Albury Wodonga, the Hume Dam is the main operating storage for the Murray River system[3], with a capacity at full supply level of 3,035,500 megalitres and a surface area of some 20,000 hectares. It is supported by a number of other dams on the riverÕs tributaries – such as Dartmouth dam on the Mitta Mitta River; VictoriaÕs largest storage with a capacity of over 4 million megalitres. The Hume dam has been jointly managed by Victoria and New South Wales since it was commissioned in 1936, as the Murray River is the State boundary. Goulburn Murray Water operates over an area of 68,000 square kilometres, and controls 835 leases and licences, generally used for the grazing of sheep and cattle.
The riverine nature of the land prior to flooding has left a dam with a series of ÒarmsÓ. The Murray arm is that along the original river, running to the north east from the dam wall. The Tallangatta or Mitta arm runs to the south east, along the course of the Mitta Mitta River. The area around both of these arms of the weir is the subject area for this research. Within the district around the Murray arm there are very productive flats, with stocking rates of one cow per two to two and a half hectares, or 6 to 7.5 Dry Sheep Equivalents[4] per hectare. From Granya Bay to Talgarno, however, the productivity deteriorates. Some areas display bad soil erosion or minimal pasture cover. The capacity of this land is to the order of 2.5 Dry sheep Equivalents or less. From Talgarno to the Bethanga Bridge there are only a few grazing licences, with low productive value. Flooding and erosion is progressively more severe in this section, especially where there is little or no tree cover. A typical lease in this section would have only a few dead and living eucalypt trees on its area. There is scant bush or lower storey vegetation. The grazing pasture is generally of native species, with some subterranean and native clovers and trefoils. This land is generally not fertilised, and therefore the legume cover is sparse. Weeds are an ongoing problem, with Noogoora burr, Bathurst burr, flea bane, square weed and Scotch thistle all present in greater or lesser quantity depending on the season and landholder.
On the western side or bank of the Mitta Mitta arm there is significant variation in land quality and hence productivity. The area from the weir wall to Tallangatta has poor grazing capacity, but areas to the south of the Murray Valley Highway have excellent capacity. To the east of Tallangatta township, licensed areas suffer from less annual flooding, and there are good grazing areas to be found. This section is predominantly flat. One of the most productive licences is found in this section. Others are enhanced by excellent tree cover, although there is still some risk of flooding from both the Murray storage as well as peak flows released from the Dartmouth dam down the Mitta Mitta River. There are, however, many areas with sparse or dead tree cover in this area, and on these leases the land is exposed and weed occurrence is problematic.
On the eastern bank of the Mitta arm, there are steep banks, with eroded and rocky areas, leading down to sloping areas. There is sparse grass cover, although some of the licences are of a better standard. Again there is sparse tree cover, with most trees dead, and troublesome weeds including Noogoora burr, scotch thistle and square weed.
Because of the proximity of the area to the large regional centre of Albury Wodonga, and the existence of a number of small towns, including Tallangatta and Bellbridge, there is a distinct market for what are termed lifestyle blocks, another for larger blocks termed Òhobby farmsÓ and the main market for rural land, delineated by holdings of more than 40 hectares.
In respect of rentals or leasing of land in the area, several approaches have been traditionally applied. The first is a percentage of the market value of the land; the second relates to agistment rates, the third to productive value of the land; and the fourth to a gross margin or income approach. Whilst clearly the analysis of the productivity of leased land is the preferred option, the real difficulty is that there is generally a dearth of current comparable information, as there is not an organised leasing market. Baxter (2001) found that in the early years of settlement it was common to hold public lease auctions, this practice ceased by the beginning of the twentieth century, as owner occupation of farm land became the norm. In the following discussion an analysis will provide an insight into how valuers in the region – and indeed those involved in the process of leasing land either from the government or private individuals – undertake the task of establishing fair or best rents, and what issues arise in respect of disputes.
Cattle grazing are the only permitted activity. However the data below could be adapted to other rural enterprises
DISCUSSION
Analysis of recent sales and transactions within the Study Area reveal the following bases:
|
Value of freehold land per hectare at ex-buildings
level |
Ranges from $2,030 per hectare for marginal farming
land; $6,200 per hectare for good average grazing country (typical of good
licensed areas fronting the Hume Dam); up to $17,800 per hectare for good
country with a lifestyle component and good water views. |
|
Freehold leases (AUD per hectare per annum, plus
rates, plus a requirement to topdress with superphosphate annually) |
Range from $67 per hectare for marginal farming land
– predominantly timbered hill with exposed granite – to the
highest figure, on the highly productive Buffalo Creek flats, at $284 per
hectare. Average farming land within the Study Area leases for $93 per
hectare. |
|
Rental returns |
Historically, returns range from 5 to 6% per annum
based on market value. This is approximately 50% of the returns found for New
Zealand by Eves (2009). |
|
Agistment values (AUD per head, all inclusive) |
Cow and calf $5 per week; sheep $0.50 per week. Has
been up to $9 per head for cow and calf, depending on demand, due to the
drought conditions experienced over the past few years |
|
Gross income per year (AUD) |
1 cow and calf = $500 1 cow and calf equals 15 dry sheep equivalent. |
|
Gross margin per hectare |
Averages $140 per hectare for the North East region
(DPI data 2004-5, pp7-10). Estimate that this would not exceed $120 in 2009,
due to seasonal factors. |
|
|
|
From a lease perspective this data is substituted into calculations using the four methodologies, for average farmland within the Study Area with a market value of $6,200 per hectare ex-buildings, to achieve a rental valuation as follows:
Method 1:
Percentage of Market Value
$6,200 per hectare @6% indicates a rental amount of $370 per hectare per annum. At 3% it would be $186 per hectare per annum.
Method 2:
Agistment Rates
The country would carry 1 cow and calf to 2 hectares. Indicates a rental amount of $130 per hectare per annum.
Method 3:
Productive Value/Gross Income Approach
The land carries 1 cow and calf per 2 hectares with a productive value of $500 per annum. Rental value would then be $125 per hectare – using the industry norm of 50% of the productive value representing the return to land.
Method 4:
Gross Margin Approach
The gross margin for this land would be $140 per hectare, and allowing a rental value of 50%, this would represent $70 per hectare per annum.
What is shown by these approaches is a significant variation in what the indicated rental value would be if any one method was relied on alone. Valuers would normally use rental evidence derived from district investigation, but it may not always be readily available or exist. The real question is how do the parties agree on the amount to be paid, and in the absence of market rental information how might the task be best approached. Clearly those aware of what the farm is worth in the market would try and base negotiations on the first method, to achieve a reasonable return to their investment. The question then would be at what rate of return? What is shown by analysis of the Study Area, however, is that there are other factors driving land values. These largely relate to lifestyle options, and reflect a society willing to invest in land with views or scenic rural attractions as a way of improving their lifestyle. Another factor involved in the trading of rural real estate has related to the capital gains experienced over time, and these are clearly indicated in EvesÕ 2009, 2007 and 2003 works. Application of this method as a stand alone is therefore likely to lead to erroneous results.
That leaves the other methods, which vary on the theme of relating rental value to productive return from the land. The second method (agistment rates) is a gross return, with the owner of the land responsible for maintenance of the land and pasture, the supply of water and stockproof fencing. Disease control is also required. The difficulty in this method also relates to the fact that agistment tends to be seasonal, with stock carried on the home farm in times of good growth, and being moved onto agistment as an emergency measure. Income for this approach cannot therefore be guaranteed: there is a distinct element of risk. Agistment should therefore be seen as a short term return, whereas what is at question here is a value for long term leased land.
The third method is favoured by farmers over the fourth. The question asked in the marketplace by farmers is ÒWhat is the productive capacity of this land?Ó What they may well also ask, however, is for more detail on the overheads and investment in capital equipment in order to realise the return. Simply assuming an all-up return ignores the importance of equipment, overhead costs, and labour. For these reasons, the gross margin approach, dealing with gross returns less variable costs is more realistic. There is an element of risk taking by simply looking to the productive value. For leased land many of the overheads which have to be accounted for in the normal sense to arrive at a net return for farming operations are borne by the lessor and not the lessee. Leasing land can be therefore seen as a good way of achieving an increase in production without standard overheads associated with land ownership.
In a series of interviews with farmers in north eastern Victoria it was found that all interviewees agreed that the agistment basis for determining rental was not relevant. Most farmers favoured the productive or gross income approach as it depends on the assessment of the productive capacity of the land. Due to tough seasonal conditions the range of gross income in the region was found to be $440 to $500 per cow and calf, with a common stocking rate found to be 1 cow and calf per 2 hectares, at a rental value of 50% equals a range of $110 to $125 per hectare. All said that the gross margin approach was too general as data is not available for specific farms. There were two variations to the productive method revealed in the interviews. One farmer said that an estimate of the productive capacity should be calculated as Dry Sheep Equivalent per hectare. The factor used by the farmers was generally 15 Dry Sheep Equivalent to one cow and calf, meaning that there was a general acceptance that much of the Study Area carries 7.5 Dry Sheep Equivalent per hectare. This would show a rental of $115 per hectare, assuming a gross profit of $460. This is shown at method three above. Another farmer estimates his ability to pay for leased land on the basis of $15 to $20 per Dry Sheep Equivalent, with the variation due to seasonal conditions. The 2009 estimate was $16 per Dry Sheep Equivalent. When this is multiplied by the productive capacity of the land, a rental of $120 is indicated.
Similarly, interviews with valuers responsible for setting Crown Leases and Licences showed that the general approach was to assess the productive capacity of the land, with the common denominator being the Dry Sheep Equivalent rating for the land being valued. This is multiplied by a dollar figure per Dry Sheep Equivalent formulated by the Office of the Valuer General. A total of 20,000 grazing licences (mainly unused roads and water frontages) and 600 leases (generally old improvement leases, perpetual leases, and other leases dating back to the early settlement period.
Goulburn Murray Water, the statutory authority controlling land on the Victorian side of the Hume Dam (84 grazing licences in the Study Area) has a similar view, but is perhaps more commercially-oriented. Its valuations take into account similar factors to those listed above, and also the impact of flooding on the lands. Weed infestation on land affected by regular flooding can be severe, and this is an impost on the licensee in terms of cost of land management. Because of the environmental impact, fertiliser cannot be used on these licences, again restricting potential productive capacity. A typical licence in 2009 is valued on the basis of 7.5 Dry Sheep Equivalents per hectare, at the rate of $11 per Dry Sheep Equivalent, less an allowance of 25% to reflect potential flooding for 2 months per annum, and a further month for the land to recover before grazing can re-commence.
Other issues may arise with rural leasehold land and rentals. Firstly, although rare, a dispute may arise as to the interpretation of terms and conditions in a lease. This may require legal expertise. Secondly, the rental, at a review date may be in dispute. How are the impacts of restrictive conditions in a lease to be treated? What impact do such conditions have on any new rental? These are difficult questions to be resolved. Disputed rentals are usually resolved with the appointment of a valuer acting as an expert to determine the market rental, and or advise on the lease terms and conditions. It is rare for valuers to be appointed for each party. Lease documents for rural land are less complicated than commercial leases. The quantum for commercial leases is generally much higher than a rural lease. This provides the economic viability to sustain legal disputation. These factors may well explain why disputation is rare, for rural leases. Thirdly valuation expertise is required to value the leasehold interest. The methodology is to discover if the current market rental is greater than the rental reserved under the lease. If it is, the difference is the profit rental. That is, if the rental was $100 ha and the market rental is $150 ha, the profit rental is $50 ha. This is multiplied by the area to give a total $ profit rental. This amount is then capitalised at a safe rate of interest for the unexpired portion of the lease. This method has been utilised for a long time, and is accepted in the market place.
CONCLUSIONS
There remains uncertainty within the market place, the government agencies, and the valuation profession as to the most appropriate, or correct, approach to be taken in performing valuations of a rental for leasehold interests. It is clear from the research that much depends on the terms and conditions of the lease. It is also clear that within the market place there is reliance on estimates of the productive capacity of the land. Farmers are taking seasonal and economic conditions into account when making their estimates of productivity and return, and the rental amount that can be afforded. Their preferred method of assessing rental is therefore the productive capacity multiplied by the dollar rate per productive unit. Evidence from government agencies also indicated that this was the method currently used to determine rents for Crown leases and licences, and also for rents attaching to land controlled by statutory bodies. There is clearly a reticence on the part of lessees to be involved in leases that are reflective of a return to the capital value of the land.
There is no data base for leases or licences that can be readily accessed by valuers, and therefore information is particularly difficult to obtain, and comparisons hard to make. Whilst the current method of assessment reflects the earning capacity of land, once other value drivers are taken into account, the return from leasing land for agricultural purposes may be very low in comparison to other forms of investment. At a time when return to property investment is being examined closely, this area remains an important one for further research.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BAXTER, J.S., (2001), Rural
Land Use and Value in Northern Victoria 1880-1960, Doctoral Thesis, RMIT University Library.
COLLINS, H.G., (1966), Rural
Land Utilization, Commonwealth Institute of
Valuers
EVES, C., (2000), Developing a NSW Rural Property Investment Index, Paper presented at the Pacific Rim Real Estate
Society Conference, Sydney, 23-27 January 2000.
EVES, C., (2003), The Influence of Farm Management on NSW Rural Property
Income and Total Average Annual Returns,
Paper presented at the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Brisbane,
19-22 January, 2003.
EVES, C., (2007), NSW Rural Land Performance: 1990-2005. Paper presented at the Pacific Rim Real Estate
Society Conference, Fremantle, 21-24 January 2007.
EVES, C., (2008), The impact of property title type on residential property
returns. Paper presented at the
Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, January,
VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES, (2009), Victorian Resources Online, URL: http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/vro accessed May 2009.
WHITEHEAD, R.G. 1997. How are farm tenancies working? Royal
Institute of Chartered Surveyors
January 1997.
CASES
CITED
Bullivant v The
Minister, Land & Valuation Court, Sydney, 13 May 1936.
Eureka Funds
Management Limited v Freehills Services Pty Ltd [2006] VSC 461 (8 December 2006)
Programme
Holdings Pty. Ltd. -v- van Gogh Holdings Pty. Ltd. [2009] WASC 79 (31 March 2009)