Caribmolasses Company Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Gannon J.,
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1991
• Neutral Citation: 1990 WJSC-HC 181
• Docket Number: [1989 No. 50 SS],50/SS/89
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1991

CARIBMOLASSES CO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION ACTS

AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 5 OF THE VALUATION ACT 1988

AND IN THE MATTER OF PREMISES MAP REFERENCE NUMBER 6B ALEXANDRA ROAD THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF WARD NORTH DOCK IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF DUBLIN

BETWEEN

CARIBMOLASSES COMPANY LIMITED

APPELLANT

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

RESPONDENT

1990 WJSC-HC 181

50/SS/89

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

RATES

Hereditament

Valuation - Assessment - Exception - Plant - Construction designed or used primarily to induce a process of change in the substance contained or transmitted - Tanks used for mixing molasses before further treatment elsewhere prior to delivery to buyer - Tanks within exception - Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, ss. 11, 12 & schedule - Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1860, s. 7 & schedule - Valuation Act, 1986, ss. 1–4, 7, 8 - Valuation Act, 1988, s. 5 - (1989/50 SS - Gannon J. - 24/1/90)

|Caribmolasses Ltd. v. Commissioner of Valuation|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Induce a process of change"

Plant - Valuation - Tanks - Molasses - Containment - Blending - Further treatment outside tanks - Whether tanks used primarily to induce such process - (1989/50 SS - Gannon J. - 24/1/90)

|Caribmolasses Ltd. v. Commissioner of Valuation|

Citations:

VALUATION ACT 1988 S5

VALUATION ACT 1986 S8

VALUATION ACT 1986 S1(2)

VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852 S.48 SCHED II REF V

VALUATION (IRL) (AMDT) ACT 1860

VALUATION ACT 1986 S7

VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852 S12

VALUATION ACT 1986 S2

ANNUAL REVISION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRL) (AMDT) ACT 1860 S7

BEAMISH & CRAWFORD V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1980 ILRM 149

VALUATION ACT 1986 S8(1)

ANNUAL REVISION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRL) (AMDT) ACT 1860 S15 SCHEDULE REF NO.1

PFIZER CHEMICAL CORPORATION V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION UNREP COSTELLO 9.05.89 1989/8/2208

INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS V SCOTTISH & NEWCASTLE BREWERIES 1982 1 WLR 322

COAL BROTHERS LTD V PHILLIPS 1982 1 WLR 1450

VALUATION ACT 1986 S3

BEAMISH & CRAWFORD V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION UNREP FINLAY 8.5.78 1980/11/2138

ANNUAL REVISION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRL) (AMDT) ACT 1860 S7(2)

1 Judgment of Gannon J., delivered the 24th day of January 1990.

2 This is an appeal by way of Case Stated from a decision of the Valuation Tribunal given on the 24th of April 1989. The Commissioner of Valuation being dissatisfied therewith as being erroneous in point of law requested this Case Stated pursuant to Section 5 of the Valuation Act 1988.The subject matter of the decision was an appeal by the above-named Appellant against the fixing by the Respondent of a valuation of £400 on hereditaments their property described as "storage tanks and yard at Alexandra Road Dublin". The point of law as expressed in the Case Stated at paragraph 6 thereof is as follows:

"The opinion of the High Court is requested as to whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the tanks in question should be considered as non-rateable plant".

3 The findings of fact by the Tribunal are set out in ten subparagraphs to paragraph 3 of the Case Stated and they are as follows:

4 2 "(1) The items in dispute consisted of two tanks located at North Dock Dublin on the old Goulding fertilizer site. The tanks were originally sulphur tanks.

5 (2) The tanks are lagged and have steam coils on the floor inside.

6 (3) Steam for the heating coils may be produced, if required, by means of an oil fired burner outside the tanks.

7 (4) Crude molasses is pumped in by ship at 40 degrees celsius by means of a pipeline.

8 (5) The crude molasses is held and contained in the tanks which are used for holding and containment and also for blending.

9 (6) Crude molasses coming from different sources may be of different consistency. Crude molasses is normally cane molasses. The viscosities of the molasses varied according to the source of supply. Each consignment of molasses is unique and no two shipments of crude molasses are the same. Accordingly the crude molasses is mixed to form a uniform blend by being pumped from one of the two tanks to the other to form a homogeneous blend.

10 (7) In practice the heating coils in the tanks are not used and the molasses is taken out of the tanks by the force of gravity and steam is applied to the pipes outside the tanks to enable the molasses to flow to the distribution point for the lorries to receive the same.

11 (8) Upon leaving the tanks water is added to the molasses outside the tanks to form "standardized molasses" to meet the specific requirement of purchasers. The water added outside the tank is hot water and this is injected at the main pumps outside the tanks.

12 (9) The purchasers were generally compound feed mills, the alcohol and yeast industries, and large farmers. Farmers use the molasses as a direct feed for livestock.

13 (10) Customers specify their requirements by reference to levels of dry matter, viscosity, sugar content and other characteristics, and the requirement is embodied in a contract which provides for the period over which that customer will draw his requirement. There would be nine or ten different specifications given in any one week of production. Customers take the product as they need it. The primary change takes place at the pumps by the injection of hot water as described above after the molasses has left the tanks."

14 The submissions addressed to the Tribunal are thus summarized in the Case Stated at paragraph 4

"4. It was submitted by Counsel on behalf of the Appellant that the tanks in question constitute non-rateable plant as set out in the Schedule at Section 8 of the Valuation Act 1986.

Counsel on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the tanks in question are used primarily for the purpose of containment of the molasses within them and that the change from crude to standardized molasses takes place outside the tanks after the crude molasses has left the tanks."

15 The Tribunal states its determination in paragraph 5 of the Case Stated which reads

"5. On the basis of the facts as found above the Tribunal concluded that the tanks in question constitute non-rateable plant as the Tribunal concluded that the tanks in question are primarily used to induce a process of change in the substance contained in them. The Tribunal concluded that the tanks in question must be considered as part of the overall plant at the Appellant's premises as being part of an integral operation used for inducing a process of change."

16 That determination as so expressed seems to me to state two findings of facts namely:

17 (a) that the tanks (constituting the rateable hereditaments) are used primarily to induce a process of change in the substance contained in them, and

18 (b) that their use thus is an integral part of an overall operation the purpose and effect of which is to induce that change.

19 whether that determination so expressed correctly leads to the conclusion: "that the tanks in question constitute non-rateable plant" now appears to be the question of law submitted.

20 On this hearing Mr. O Cuiv for the Commissioner by whom the Case Stated was requested informed me that it is admitted that the tanks, being the hereditaments in question, constitute "plant" as defined in Section 1 (2) of the Valuation Act 1986.The question of law, he states, is to determine whether as fixed properties they come within Category 5 in the Schedule inserted in the Valuation (Ireland) Act 1852 by Section 3 of the Valuation Act 1986, having regard to the amendment by substitution effected to the Valuation (Ireland) Amendment Act 1860 by Section 7 of the Valuation Act 1986.

21 The Tribunal had received written submissions and had an oral hearing on the 31st of March 1989. The Tribunal delivered a written judgment on the 24th of April 1989 which is incorporated with this Case Stated. In it there appears an error of fact which is corrected in the Case Stated. The correct fact is that the process of changing the standard of molasses is achieved by water dilution at the time when the molasses is being withdrawn out of the tank. The statements of fact at subparagraphs (8) and (10) in paragraph 3 of the Case Stated are correct and the summary on this point of Mr. O'Connor's evidence and of Mr. O Cuiv's submission stated in the judgment is incorrect. This Court is satisfied from a perusal of the judgment delivered by the Tribunal and its summary of the evidence (as corrected) that the findings of fact as stated in the Case Stated are supported by the evidence so summarized and are reasonable. But the decision which evoked the request for this Case Stated is not simply a resolution on a dispute merely of facts. It involves making a correct interpretation of the complex requirements of the legislature as to what facts are pertinent and what inferences of fact and law must be deduced. In the circumstances the failure of the Tribunal to identify a definable point of law for the decision of this Court, leaving the Court and Counsel to guess what is the precise point of law it is being asked to decide, is understandable however undesirable.

22 The manner in which the Tribunal dealt with questions of law is disclosed in the final four paragraphs of the judgment delivered on the 24th of April, 1989. They read as follows:

"Counsel for both parties referred to the law. It is not, however, proposed to deal with the law in this judgment as the same is set out at pages 17–19 of the Tribunal's judgment in the Premier Molasses case."

23 In the Premier Molasses case the Tribunal found that taking the six tanks as one integrated operation that then that operation consisted of inducing a process of change in the substance contained or transmitted and that the tanks, taken as one integrated whole, were designed and used primarily for that purpose.

24 Applying the reasoning of the Premier...