In the matter of the Valuation Acts.
And in the matter of Section 5 of the Valuation Act 1988.
And in the matter of the Irish Management Institute premises at Balally, Sandyford Road, Dundrum, Dublin 16.
Case Stated - Appeal by way of case stated from decision of Valuation Tribunal - Whether tribunal had erred in law - Whether case stated involved question of law - Valuation Act 1988 (No 2), section 5.
The High Court (before Mr Justice Geoghegan); judgment delivered 1 May 1997.
A court, on appeal, cannot reopen matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Valuation Tribunal unless it can be shown that the tribunal was clearly wrong in law.
The High Court so held in replying to a case stated from the Valuation Tribunal that there had been no error in law on the part of the tribunal in valuing the premises concerned.
Richard Cooke SC for the appellant; Andrias O Caoimh SC for the Valuation Tribunal.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said that the matter had come before the court pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Valuation Act 1988. The premises, the subject matter of the valuation, were found by the tribunal to be a purpose built training centre. In addition the premises comprised administration offices. Mr Justice Geoghegan said that the tribunal had found that a planning permission for the use of the administration block as commercial offices, had been granted to the appellant in July 1984. Subsequent to this, portions of the premises had been let for temporary convenience on leases for less than three years. The tribunal had heard evidence relating to appropriate comparisons and had determined the rateable valuation to be £2,500.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said that there had been an earlier appeal by way of case stated which had been heard by Mr Justice Barron who held that the tribunal had erred in law and referred the matter back to it. A newly constituted tribunal reheard the matter but a further case stated arose. The questions of law posed were: (1) Was the tribunal correct in law in its holding that the subject premises were partly commercial and that this had been evidenced by the commercial lettings of part of the administration block and by the planning permission which existed in relation to the entire administration block? (2) was it correct in law in excluding the premises of the Law Society as a suitable comparison? (3) Was it correct in law in its determination having regard to the directions contained in the judgment of Mr Justice Barron? This appeal came before Mr Justice Morris who had difficulty in discerning what questions of law were required to be determined and who ordered the matter back to the tribunal for clarification. The tribunal now posed only one question for the Court: Was the tribunal correct in law in holding that the buildings of the subject premises were to be valued as being partly used for commercial purposes because a planning permission existed for the use of the administrative block as commercial offices?
Mr Justice Geoghegan felt that the terms of this question could not be easily reconciled with the terms of the first three questions contained in the original case stated. In addition, he pointed to an express finding in the original case stated that the premises were partly commercial as evidenced by the lettings and the existence of the planning permission. This suggested to Mr Justice Geoghegan that it was not merely the planning permission by itself which had led the tribunal to the view that the building should be valued as being used partly for commercial purposes as seemed to be implied in the new revised question. In addition, Mr Justice Geoghegan pointed to the tribunal's remark that regardless of the existence of planning permission the tribunal accepted the respondent's earlier estimate of net annual value for the subject hereditament at £250,000. This also suggested to Mr Justice Geoghegan that the existence of planning permission had not been considered particularly relevant.
In conclusion, Mr Justice Geoghegan was of the opinion that there was no question of law involved. He accepted that there had been disagreements between the parties as to what comparisons were appropriate but these were matters within the jurisdiction of the tribunal and unless it could be shown that the tribunal had erred in law, those matters could not be reopened on a case stated. Mr Justice Geoghegan rejected the appellant's submission that the tribunal had misunderstood what was involved in the concept of net annual value; and determined that the newly constituted tribunal had not made any errors such as those criticized by Mr Justice Barron in the first case stated.
Solicitors: Roger Greene & Co (Dublin) for the appellant; Chief State Solicitor for the Valuation Tribunal.