Bulmers Ltd (formerly Showerings (Ireland) Ltd) v Commissioner of Valuation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Quirke J.
• Judgment Date: 29 July 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] IEHC 260
• Docket Number: No. 72 SS/2001
• Date: 29 July 2005

[2005] IEHC 260

THE HIGH COURT

No. 72 SS/2001

APPEAL NO. V A 97/6/008

BULMERS LTD (FORMERLY SHOWERINGS (IRELAND) LTD v COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION ACTS 1852 TO 1998

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION OF PREMISES AT MAP REFERENCE 10

ab, 11 ab, 12 ab, 13, 14, 15, 16 DOWD'S LANE

(INCL. 6a Abbey and 11b NELSON), UD: Clonmel East Urban,

Clonmel, Co. Tipperary

BETWEEN

BULMERS LIMITED (FORMERLY SHOWERINGS (IRELAND) LIMITED)

APPELLANT

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

RESPONDENT

VALUATION ACT 1988 S5

RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRL) AMDT 1860 S7

VALUATION ACT 1986 S7V

ALUATION ACT 1860 SCHED 1

VALUATION ACT 1986 S8

VALUATION ACT 1860 S7(2)

VALUATION ACT 1988 S2

VALUATION ACT 1988 S2(3)

VALUATION ACT 1988 S5(6)

VALUATION ACT 1988 S5(7)

PREMIER PERICLASE v VALUATION TRIBUNAL UNREP HIGH 24.6.1999 2000/15/5860

HENRY DENNY & SONS (IRL) LTD v MIN FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 1998 1 IR 34

VALUATION ACT 1986 S7(1)(a)

BEAMISH & CRAWFORD v COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1980 ILRM 149

PFIZER CHEMICAL CORP v COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION UNREP COSTELLO 9.5.1989 1989/8/2208

SIUICRE EIREANN CPT v COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1992 ILRM 682

IRISH REFINING PLC v COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1995 2 ILRM 223

DENIS COAKLEY & CO LTD v CMSR OF VALUATION 1996 2 ILRM 90

Valuation tribunal

Point of law - Circumstances in which High Court should interfere with determinations and findings of respondent - Whether tanks, vats and equipment machinery for valuation purposes - Whether vats and connecting pipework and pumps plant which can be rateably valued - Whether respondent should take into account primary design or use of tanks and vats - Decision of respondent affirmed (2001/72SS - Quirke J - 29/7/2005) [2005] IEHC 260 - Bulmers Ltd (formerly Showerings (Ireland)Ltd) v Commissioner of Valuation

Facts: The appellant who was dissatisfied with a determination of the Valuation Tribunal requested the tribunal to seek the opinion of the High Court on a point of law by way of case stated. The questions asked in the case stated were: (1). Whether the findings of fact made in the judgment of the tribunal to the effect that the tanks and vats used by the appellant company at its cider production plant did not constitute machinery within the meaning of S. 7 of the Act of 1860 as amended by S. 7 of the 1986 Act, were supported by the evidence and, (2). Whether the tribunal erred in law in determining that the tanks and vats were not machinery and further that they did not fall within the category of plant which was excluded from rateable valuation by virtue of the provisions of Reference no. 1 of the schedule to the Act of 1860.

Held by Quirke J. in upholding the determination of the Valuation Tribunal:

1. That the tribunal’s conclusion on the evidence that the tanks and vats were tanks and receptacles and were not machines or the integral parts of machinery was a finding of fact based upon the correct application of the appropriate principles of law. There was no unsustainable finding of fact by the tribunal on that issue or any error of law.

2. That the tribunal’s finding that the tanks and vats did not fall within the category of plant which was excluded from rateable valuation was not illogical or irrational. There was evidence before it to justify its finding that the primary use for the equipment was to facilitate storage or containment and was not to induce a process of change.

Reporter: L.O’S.

Quirke J.

1 This is a case stated by the Valuation Tribunal for the opinion of the High Court in accordance with the provisions of s. 5 of the Valuation Act,1988 pursuant to a request in writing dated the 27th September, 2000. The request was addressed to the Chairman of the Valuation Tribunal by the appellant which was dissatisfied by the determination of the Tribunal on a point of law. This appellant's dissatisfaction was duly expressed to the Tribunal on the 20th September, 2000, immediately after the determination of the appeal by the Tribunal.

2 The case stated, having been amended by agreement and signed by the Chairman of the Tribunal has set out the facts which have been agreed or found, the submissions which have been made to the Tribunal and the determination of the Tribunal on the issues before it. Two questions of law have been referred to this Court for determination.

3 1. The property in issue comprises 56 tanks or vats interconnected by pipework and pumps. The tanks and vats are used by the appellant company at its cider production plant situate at Clonmel in Co. Tipperary. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether these tanks or vats and the pipework and pumps which connect them are rateable.

4 2. The appellant is a large company which manufactures or produces cider for consumption within this jurisdiction and for export. Part of its production plant is located at Clonmel in an area known as Dowd's Lane. The remainder of the appellant's production plant and its bottling plant is situated at a location called Annerville outside Clonmel.

5 3. The appellant's premises comprise an old warehouse building, (which houses original timber vats used in the production of cider), together with a filtration area and a boiler room. The building is constructed with brick and rubber masonry walls concentrate floors and a combination of roof coverings including slates, corrugated asbestos and metal decking.

6 The premises have been used by the appellant company for its operations since 1938. Immediately adjoining the building there are concrete tanks which were installed during the mid 1950's. These vessels are constructed with mass concrete walls which are lined internally with bitumen. They have asphalt covered concrete roofs.

7 Opposite the original building and on the eastern side of Dowd's Lane is the crushing plant and apple yard together with a three story building which accommodates staff canteen and toiletry facilitates. The crushing plant is constructed with concrete walls and steel decking. It has a concrete floor and a barrel type corrugated iron roof. The new three-storey building immediately fronting the crushing plant is constructed with concrete block walls, concrete floors and an asbestos slated roof. Twenty stainless steel tanks have been erected on the premises. These are cylindrical in shape with heights varying from 25 to 40 feet. Eleven of these tanks have outer steel cladding.

8 4. In addition to the 20 stainless steel tanks there are 22 timber vats on the premises. 14 concrete tanks are on the premises but are now disused.

9 The capacity of the stainless steel tanks is estimated to be between 1..044 million gallons and 1.037 million gallons.

10 The capacity of the timber vats is estimated to be between 382,800 gallons and 385,600 gallons.

11 The capacity of the concrete tanks is estimated to be between 789,200 gallons and 791,486 gallons. Some wooden vats which have also been described as"disused" are estimated to have a capacity of 32,000 gallons.

12 5. All of the vessels on the site including all of the tanks are connected by a series of stainless steel pipe work of various diameters. This pipe work is located both on the inside and on the outside of the buildings and it stretches across Dowd's Lane. The finished product produced on the premises is a high strength 10% alcohol product which is transported by road in bulk containers to the appellants” plant at Annerville where it is diluted to the appropriate alcoholic strength and bottled.Cider is made from apple juice. The production and supply of apple juice is seasonal and therefore the vast majority of production takes place during a short period of time.

13 6. The process for the production of cider can be summarised as follows:

14 (a) Apples are the brought to the appellants” plant and are washed and channelled by water to a "miller" where they are chopped into small pieces. A pre-dosed quantity of milled apples are placed in a"cheese" (a wooden slat containing a hair)

15 (b) The slats go into a hydraulic press which squeezes juice from the milled apples. After a second pressing the "cheese" is dismantled and the pumice is remilled and a second cheese built so as to extract the greatest amount possible of juice from the apples.

16 (c) The juice is then pumped through a 10,000 gallon wooden receipt slat. During this process juice is extracted from,(i), the hairs, (ii), the vat and

17 (iii), the pipe work. The 10,000 gallon receipt vat is used to accommodate this process. A chemical known as Somax is added at this stage for the purpose of eliminating undesirable yeast. Somax is sulphur dioxide It kills non-fermenting yeast.

18 (d) The juice is allowed to stand in the 10,000 gallon receipt vat for approximately 24 hours in order to allow the Somax to take effect.

19 (e) The juice is pumped from a receipt vat to a fermentation vat. Fermentation commences by reason of the presence of yeast which has been allowed to accumulate (i) during the crushing stage, (ii) during the transfer and

20 (iii) by reason of contact with the tanks.

21 (f) A commodity called starch hydrolysed is added at different stages during fermentation for the purpose of bringing the gravity to an appropriate level, and increasing the alcohol content. This commodity is added in three or four different stages to the fermentation.

22 (g) At this point another chemical called biopectinase is added. This is an enzyme which is intended to break down pectin which, if not broken down will cause filtration problems.

23 (h) The receipt vats are required (a) to pick up yeast (b) as a measure and (c) in order to enable Somax to be added to the product.

24 (i) The fermentation vat is required (a) to enable fermentation to occur (b) to enable starch hydrolysed to be added and (c) in order to enable biopectinase to be...