Armstrong, Appellant; The Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland, Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 28 February 1905
• Date: 28 February 1905
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Armstrong

Appellant

and

The Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland

Respondent (1).

K. B. Div.

Appeal.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1905.

Valuation Acts — Poor rate — Publichouse — Value of license taken into account — Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 63), s. 11 — Appeal from valuation to Commissioner of Valuation — Appointment of valuators to view premises who had been engaged in the original valuation of other tenements in the same city — Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, ss. 17, 20.

In ascertaining the value, under the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, of a licensed publichouse regard must be had to the existence of the license.

So held, by the King's Bench Division (Lord O'Brien, L.C.J., and Gibson, J.; Madden, J., diss.) and by the Court of Appeal.

The occupier of premises in the city of Belfast appealed to the Commissioner of Valuation against the value assessed on his premises upon a general revision of the valuation of Belfast, directed by the Lord Lieutenant. The Commissioner of Valuation directed two valuators to view the premises and make a report, as provided by sect. 20 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852. Neither of these valuators had been employed in the original revision of the valuation of the premises in question, but they had both been employed in the original revision of the valuation of other premises in the city of Belfast:—

Held, by the King's Bench Division and Court of Appeal, that the fact of the valuators having been employed in the original revision of the valuation of such other premises was no objection to their being appointed to value the premises in question.

Case Stated by the Recorder of Belfast, under 23 Vict. c. 4, section 10, upon an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Valuation fixing the annual rateable value of a certain licensed house and premises in the city of Belfast.

The following is a copy of the material portions of the case as stated by the Recorder:—

“2. The case was heard before me at Belfast on the 26th of May, 1904; Mr. Henry, K.C., appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Vesey Fitz Gerald, K.C., for the Commissioner of Valuation.

The Corporation of Belfast were not represented. The following K facts were either proved or admitted.

“3. The Lord Lieutenant, pursuant to section 34 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 63), directed the Commissioner of Valuation to make a general revision of the valuation of the city of Belfast, which general revision is hereinafter referred to as the revaluation.

“4. Prior to the revaluation the appellant was occupier of the licensed house and premises situate at Nos. 159 & 161, Shankill-road, in the city of Belfast. The said premises were then valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property at the annual sum of £115. Such sum did not include anything on foot of the value of the license.

“5. The Commissioner of Valuation, pursuant to section 17 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, made out and signed a list of the several hereditaments and tenements contained in the re-valuation lists and their respective valuations, and transmitted copies of such lists to the town clerk, who duly published the same.…

“6. The appellant's said premises were valued in the revaluation lists at the annual sum of £185, which included a sum on foot of the estimated increased letting value of the premises attributable to the license.

“7. The appellant appealed against the said revaluation on the ground that the premises had been over-estimated.…

“8. The Commissioner of Valuation directed two valuers—namely, Mr. James Carroll and Mr. Charles Boland—to view the said premises, and investigate the complaint stated in the said notice of appeal, and report thereon to the Commissioner of Valuation (15 & 16 Vict. c. 63, s. 20). On the hearing of this case it was stated by counsel for the Commissioner that neither Mr. Carroll nor Mr. Boland was engaged in the original valuation of the premises the subject of this case, though they were engaged in the original valuation of other premises in the city of Belfast; and this does not appear to have been objected to by the counsel for the appellant.

“9. The Commissioner of Valuation, on the report of the said valuators, amended the annual valuation of the appellant's said premises by reducing the sum to £170.

“10. The Commissioner of Valuation made out and signed a list of the cases in which he had amended or refused to amend the valuation contained in the original lists complained of, and transmitted such list so signed to the town clerk, who duly published the same.…

“11. The said William John Armstrong, the occupier of said premises, further appealed against the said valuation of £170, to the General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the City of Belfast, as provided by the 15 & 16 Vict. c, 63, section 22, on the ground that said valuation was ultra vires and excessive, and was not in conformity with the valuation of the surrounding property, and was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act in that case made and provided.…

“12. Thomas E. M'Connell, Robert Stewart, and James S. Oswald, examined on behalf of the appellant, gave evidence of the annual value of the premises as a building without reference to any additional rent which they might bring by reason of the premises being licensed. It was also given in evidence that the premises were held under fee-farm grant, subject to a yearly ground rent of £22, that £3120 had been paid for the premises, and £1100 subsequently expended on re-building. It was further deposed that the selling value of publichouses in Belfast had generally declined, and that in some instances they had depreciated to the extent of seventy-five per cent.

“13. The said James Carroll and Charles Boland, officials of the valuation office, valued the premises at the sum appealed against.

“It was admitted in evidence that the valuation of £170 was arrived at by valuing the premises as a building at £115, and the additional annual value attributable to the license at an estimated sum of £55.

“14. Mr. Henry, K.C., on behalf of the appellant, objected that it was contrary to law to value the license as forming a portion of the valuation of the premises; he further objected that the employment of the said James Carroll and Charles Boland to investigate and report on the complaint of the appellant to the Commissioner of Valuation was contrary to the provisions of 15 & 16 Vict. c. 63, s. 20, on the ground that they were valuers who had been previously employed in making the original valuation contained in the lists. Mr. FitzGerald, for the Commissioner of Valuation, argued contra.

“14a. I find as facts that the annual value of the premises, exclusive of the license, is £115, and that their additional annual value by reason of their being licensed premises is £55.

“15. I confirmed the valuation on the ground that the valuation was made in conformity with the provisions of 15 & 16 Vict. c. 63.

“16. Pursuant to the provisions of the 23 Vict. c. 4, s. 10, I have been requested, on behalf of the appellant, William John Armstrong, to state a case setting forth the facts and grounds of my decision; and I state this case accordingly.

“The question for the consideration of the Court is what should be done in the premises.”

Clancy (with him, Matheson, K.C., and Henry, K.C.), for the appellant:—

We contend, in the first place, that the appointment by the Commissioner of Valuation of valuators on the occasion of the appeal to him was not in accordance with the condition required by section 20 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, namely, that the valuator directed to make the report should be one “who shall not have been previously employed in making the original valuation contained in the lists as aforesaid.” The words “lists as aforesaid” refer to the lists mentioned in section 17, which provides that as soon as the valuation of all the hereditaments and tenements within any county or poor law union, county of a city, or county of a town, shall be completed, the Commissioner of Valuation is to make out a list of the several hereditaments and tenements contained in each townland or other denomination therein. Thus, a unit is taken for valuation, e.g. the county or county of a city (in the present case the city of Belfast), and various lists are made out comprising the hereditaments in such unit, which are the lists referred to in sect. 20. We submit therefore that upon the true construction of these two sections “lists as aforesaid” means the lists for the county borough of Belfast; and as these two gentlemen—Messrs Carroll and Boland—were employed in making the original valuation contained in such lists, they were not capable of being appointed under section 20. The construction we contend for is in accordance with the language of the section, and also with its policy, the object obviously being to obtain a fresh and independent report from persons who had not been engaged in making the original valuation in the district.

Secondly, we contend that the existence of the license should not have been taken into account for the purpose of increasing the valuation. Sect. 11 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, lays down the principle on which the valuation of houses and buildings is to be made, viz.: “upon an estimate of the net annual value thereof, that is to say, the rent for which one year with another the same might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year,” the outgoings referred to in the section being paid by the tenant. We submit the words “its actual state” mean the actual physical condition of the building; they cover cases of structural alterations and improvements, but can have no reference to the existence of a license, which is merely a personal...