Is a kiwifruit licence part of the rateable value?

Is a kiwifruit licence part of the rateable value?
Tuesday 11 October, 2022
A recent High Court case approving a new approach to valuing gold kiwifruit orchards for rating purposes will interest councils with gold kiwifruit orchards within their boundaries. This case was a test case in which the Gisborne District Council appealed a Land Valuation Tribunal (LVT) decision that the value of a licence to grow SunGold kiwifruit should be deducted from the capital value of the property.
Background
SunGold is the dominant gold kiwifruit variety in New Zealand, as it is Psa-V resistant. Growers must hold a licence from Zespri to grow it. The licence is not legally an estate or interest in land; it is a personal contract between the grower and Zespri and relates to a specific area of land. The main way to obtain a licence is to buy a SunGold orchard and have the licence transferred. Zespri must approve the licence transfer and will enter into a new contract with the purchaser after 30 days.
In this case, Gisborne District Council assessed the capital value of the property, a SunGold kiwifruit orchard at $4.1 million. The value of the land without the licence was around $2.9 million.
Land Valuation Tribunal decision
Most districts in New Zealand use the capital value as the rateable value when setting rates. Capital valueof land means the amount it would sell for (assuming no mortgage) if offered for sale on reasonable terms and conditions to a willing seller. Capital value is made up of the land value and the value of any improvements.
The LVT held that s 20 of the Rating Valuations Act 1998 meant the land value did not include the value of the kiwifruit vines, but they did constitute an improvement to the land, so were included in the capital value of the property. However, the LVT considered that the licence was not an improvement to the land, rather it was a business asset, like plant and machinery, so not part of the capital value.
High Court decision
The High Court started by pointing out that capital value is a proxy for fair market value. If a SunGold orchard is sold, the seller and buyer would both expect the sale to include the licence, and that the purchase price would reflect the value of the licence. This is consistent with current practice, where the value of the licence is priced into the property’s market value. The Court considered that the licence is “intrinsically part of the land asset which gives the ability to grow and sell this variety of fruit”, so is included in capital value for rating purposes. The Court considered that if Zespri stopped approving all licence transfers, this would be reflected in the market value of the property.
The Court held that it is irrelevant whether the licence is an improvement to the land, as improvements are irrelevant to the statutory definition of capital value. Improvements are the difference between land value and capital value, but capital value is a proxy for market value, and does not require that improvements be valued.
Next steps
Councils with gold kiwifruit orchards in their districts are likely to reconsider their approach to valuing those orchards based on this decision. However, councils may want to proceed cautiously, as New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Inc is bringing judicial review proceedings in relation to this new approach to kiwifruit valuation.
For any questions relating to this article, please get in touch with one of our experts below.
Talk to one of our experts
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill
Thursday 13 February, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
