Cement Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 May 1960
• Date: 14 May 1960
• Court: High Court

High Court.

Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Valuation.

CEMENT LIMITED

Appellants

and

COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION, Respondent (1)

Rating - Valuation - Excessive valuation - Appeal by occupier - Commissioner of Valuation empowered to "alter and amend" valuation on appeal - Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Valuation - Valuation (Ireland) Act,1852 (15 & 16 Vict., c. 63), ss. 19, 20, 31.

Rating - Rateability - Rotary kilns in cement works - Large permanent structures mounted on concrete piers affixed to realty and operated by motive machinery affixed to realty - Kilns designed to convert "slurry" into clinker by the application of motive power - Whether such kilns "buildings" or"machinery" - Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict., c. 63),s. 12 - Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ir.) Amendment Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict., c. 4), s. 7.

Appeal by way of Case Stated.

In 1952, the valuation of the buildings of the appellant Company in Drogheda was increased from £3,030 to £3,100. On appeal by the appellant Company to the Commissioner of Valuation, pursuant to s. 31 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, against such increased valuation, the premises were re-inspected and the buildings valued at the further increased amount of £5,000. This amount was arrived at by the inclusion for the first time in the buildings for the purpose of valuation, of two large rotary cement kilns, the nature and functions of which are fully described in the Case Stated and in the judgments of Davitt P. and Dixon J.

The appellant Company appealed to the Circuit Court Judge of the Eastern Circuit (Judge Fawsitt) against such increased valuation, and, on the 12th January, 1954, the Circuit Court Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the increased valuation of £5,000.

From this decision the appellant Company appealed by way of Case Stated to the High Court pursuant to the provisions of ss. 10 and 11 of the Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ir.) Amendment Act, 1860, and to s. 31, sub-s. 3, of the Courts of Justice Act. 1936.

The Case Stated was as follows:—

"This is a Case Stated and signed by me, Diarmaid Fawsitt, Circuit Judge assigned to the Eastern Circuit, sitting at Drogheda in the County of Louth, pursuant to the provisions of the Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1860, sections 10, 11, and 12, and pursuant to the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, section 31 (3), made at the request of the appellants, Cement Limited, who by notice dated the 25th day of March, 1954, have expressed dissatisfaction with my decision dismissing the above entitled appeal given in the Courthouse at Drogheda in the County of Louth on the 12th day of January, 1954, on the ground that my decision was erroneous in law. Hereunder I set forth the facts and the grounds of such decision for the opinion of the High Court of Justice:

1. On the 13th and 23rd days of October, 1953, this case came before me by way of appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Valuation dated the 31st day of January, 1953. I reserved my judgment and delivered it on the 12th day of January, 1954.

2. The ground of appeal as set out in the notice of appeal dated the 12th day of February, 1953, was as follows:—'That the said valuation (i.e., of £31 0 0 on land and £5,000 0 0 on buildings making a total valuation of £5,031 0 0) has not been made in accordance with the statutory provisions and requirements concerning the same or in accordance with the proper principles of valuation applicable in ascertaining the net annual value of the said tenement and rateable hereditaments (i.e., the cement factory, offices, stores, sheds, sidings, petrol tank, weigh-bridge and land) and that the said valuation is excessive.'

3. Upon the hearing of the appeal before me it was admitted that the statutory requirements regulating valuation appeals had been complied with and that the parties to the appeal were properly before the Court.

4. The appellants, Cement Limited, carry on in the above described hereditament the business of the manufacture and distribution of cement for structural and other construction purposes. The Company was incorporated and registered on 19th May, 1936. It carries on a like business in its premises in County Limerick. In both factories the cement product is produced in rotary kilns. The cement output of the Drogheda mill increased from an output of 166,000 tons in 1939 to an output of 360,000 tons in 1952. No other Company in the country uses rotary kilns for the manufacture of cement.

"5. The valuation history of the Drogheda hereditament is as follows:—

"Year	P.L.V. land	P.L.V. buildings
"1939	£74 0 0	£2,080 0 0
",,	reduced on appeal to Commissioner of Valuation to £57 0 0	£1,850 0 0
"1940	£57 0 0	£2,000 0 0
"1941	£57 0 0	£3,000 0 0
",,	reduced on appeal to Commissioner of Valuation to £57 0 0	£2,000 0 0

1943	£57 0 0	£2,650 0 0
,,	reduced on appeal to Commissioner of Valuation to £57 0 0	£2,000 0 0
1948	£57 0 0	£3,250 0 0
,,	reduced on appeal to Commissioner of Valuation to £31 0 0	£3,000 0 0
1951	£31 0 0	£3,030 0 0
1952	£31 0 0	£3,100 0 0

"The increase of £30 0 0 shown in the 1951 figures for buildings was in respect of a valuation in that amount placed on a newly erected garage and store building. The Company did not appeal to the Commissioner of Valuation from this increase in the valuation of the buildings. The increase of £70 0 0 shown in the 1952 figures for buildings was in respect of a valuation in that amount placed on a newly erected clay-washing plant structure for the making of 'slurry.' The Company appealed against this increase in the valuation of the buildings to the Commissioner of Valuation, who, thereupon had the entire rateable hereditament re-inspected and ultimately allowed the valuation of £31 0 0 placed on the land to remain unaltered but increased from £3,100 0 0 to £5,000 0 0 the valuation for rating purposes placed on the buildings. It was from this increased valuation of £5,000 0 0 on the buildings and £31 0 0 on land that the Company, by the said notice of appeal dated 12th February, 1953, appealed to this Court. I should add here, for the information of the High Court, that the senior staff valuer of the office of the Commissioner of Valuation gave me the figures set out above and stated on oath that the Commissioner of Valuation had extended to the Company since its establishment 'compassionate treatment' because it was engaged in establishing a new industry in the country and at a time of grave national emergency.

6. On the opening of the appeal to me Mr. Liston for the appellant Company made a preliminary legal submission, viz., that the Commissioner of Valuation has no jurisdiction to increase a revised valuation on an appeal to him from the valuation placed on a hereditament by the original rating valuer. He opened to me sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852. Mr. Cooke for the Commissioner of Valuation argued to the contrary effect, viz., that the Commissioner of Valuation has power under section 20 to alter an original valuation upwards as well as power to reduce it in a proper case, and to do so, also, in respect of a valuation against which there has been no appeal if such valuation appears to the Commissioner to be 'similarly circumstanced with those respecting which appeals have been made in order to render the valuation of every tenement proportionate and uniform.'

7. After considering the sections of the Act to which I had been referred by counsel and also the provision contained in section 31 of the same Act, I was of opinion, and so held, that the effect of section 20 is to confer on the Commissioner of Valuation wide powers of alteration and amendment of revised valuations upwards as well as downwards. I thereupon ruled against the preliminary legal submission made to me by Mr. Liston on behalf of the appellants, and allowed the appeal proper to be opened to me.

8. The question, on this point of the appeal, for the opinion of the High Court, is, was my ruling erroneous in law?

9. In arriving at the increased valuation figure of £5,000 0 0 placed on the buildings of the Company the Commissioner of Valuation admittedly took into account for valuation purposes two rotary kilns installed by the Company for the manufacture of cement. These two kilns although installed to the knowledge of the office of the Commissioner over a number of years had never previously been regarded as forming part of the hereditament for rating purposes. The first of the two kilns was installed in 1938 and a second kiln was ordered in 1939, but its installation was not completed until the 1st January, 1941. The second kiln redoubled the cement output of the Company's factory at Drogheda. A third kiln, I was informed, is on order, and, when installed, the Company's combined outputs of cement at their Drogheda and Limerick mills will, it is anticipated, be capable of supplying the total cement requirements of the Republic.

10. The valuers who had inspected and valued the Company's buildings at Drogheda between the years 1939 and 1952 were aware of the installations of the two kilns referred to but had not rated them for valuation purposes. The valuer who was directed by the Commissioner of Valuation to inquire into and report on the subject-matter of the Company's appeal against the increased valuation of £3,100 0 0 placed on the Company's buildings at Drogheda in 1952 was the first valuer from the Valuation Office to include the two rotary kilns as forming part of the hereditament for rating purposes. It was on this valuer's report that the Commissioner further increased the valuation of the buildings from £3,100 0 0 to £5,000 0 0.

11. The net question before me was:—Were the two rotary cement kilns rateable under our valuation statutes?

...