Coal Distributors Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Blayney
Judgment Date01 January 1990
Neutral Citation1989 WJSC-HC 1072
Docket Number[1989 No. 276 SS]
CourtHigh Court
Date01 January 1990

1989 WJSC-HC 1072

THE HIGH COURT

COAL DISTRIBUTORS LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

BETWEEN

DUBLIN CIRCUIT COUNTY BOROUGH OF DUBLIN
IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION ACTS 1852 TO 1874
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ANNUAL REVISION OF
RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRELAND) AMENDMENT ACT 1860
AS ADAPTED BY THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1936
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION OF LOTS 88A AND 88B
PIGEON HOUSE ROAD, PEMBROKE EAST "A" WARD, COUNTY BOROUGH
OF DUBLIN

BETWEEN

COAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED
APPELLANT

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION
RESPONDENT

Citations:

VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852 S20

BOUNDARIES ACT 1857

VALUATION (IRL)(AMDT) ACT 1854 S4

SWITZER & CO V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1902 2 IR 275

ALMA V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1876 10 IRCL 476

LOCAL GOVT (ADAPTATION OF IRISH ENACTMENTS) ORDER 1899

VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852 S25

VALUATION (IRL)(AMDT) ACT 1854 S5

VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852 S31

ROADSTONE LTD V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1961 IR 239

VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852 S12

VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852 S11

VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852 S23

ANNUAL REVISION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRL) AMDT ACT 1860 S6

Synopsis:

RATES

Hereditament

Rateability - Revision - Request - Scope of revision - Reclaimed land - Parcels held under separate titles - Parcels listed as single hereditament - Amendment of valuation lists - Appellate jurisdiction of Circuit Court - Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, ss. 11, 23 - Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1854, s. 4 - Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1860, s. 6 - (Blayney J. - 31/7/89) - [1990] ILRM 172

|Coal Distributors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Valuation|

CIRCUIT COURT

Jurisdiction

Hereditament - Rateability - Revision - Request - Scope of revision - Reclaimed land - Parcels held under separate titles - Parcels listed as single hereditament - Amendment of valuation lists - Appellate jurisdiction of court - (Blayney J. - 31/7/89) [1990] ILRM 172

|Coal Distributors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Valuation|

1

Judgement of Mr. Justice Blayney delivered the 31st day of July 1989.

2

This Case Stated raises two net questions of law under the Valuation Acts. Firstly, whether land reclaimed from the sea, being therefore land which had never previously existed, may be valued by the Commissioner of Valuation in pursuance of a request by a local authority under Section 4 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act 1854 (the 1854 Act), and secondly, whether the valuation as a single unit by the Commissioner of Valuation of two adjoining properties, held under separate titles, is ultra vires the Commissioner and accordingly a nullity.

3

The Appellant Company occupies lands at Pigeon House Road, Pembroke East "A" Ward, in the County Borough of Dublin, which lands are designated in the Valuation Lists as Lots 88a and 88b. All the lands comprised in the two lots are lands wholly reclaimed from the sea and were brought within the County Borough of Dublin for the first time in 1985.

4

The lands in Lot 88a consist of two separate adjoining holdings, the first containing 2.49 hectares and held by the Appellant under an Indenture of Lease made the 28th day of May 1981 for a term of 35 years from the 1st June 1973 at a current rent of £47,000 per annum, with seven year rent reviews; and the second, containing 1.17 hectares, being held by the Appellant under an appropriation made on the 28th day of May 1981 under Section 55 of the Harbours Act 1946for a term of 35 years at a rent of £22,500 per annum, with seven year rent reviews.

5

The lands in Lot 88b contain .94 hectares and are held by the Appellant under an appropriation made on the 28th day of May 1981 pursuant to Section 55 of the Harbours Act 1946at a current rent of £18,560 per annum.

6

All these lands in the occupation of the Appellant were listed for revision as two separate lots by the local authority, being the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the City of Dublin, pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the 1854 Act. The Commissioner, on appeal to him under Section 20 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act 1852 (the 1852 Act), confirmed the original valuation which had been appealed against and which was as follows:

7

(1) Lot 88a - Buildings R.V. £530, yard £1,400, £1,930 (total).

8

(2) Lot 88b - Buildings R.V. £18, yard £350, £368 (total).

9

The Appellant appealed to the Circuit Court from the decision of the Commissioner and the Case stated sets out that at the outset of the appeal it was submitted by Counsel for the Appellant that the valuation on the two lots was bad and ultra vires the power of the Commissioner on the ground that

10

a "(a) The entire of the lands comprised in the lots before the Court were newly reclaimed lands that had first been taken within the County Borough boundary of Dublin in 1985 pursuant to the provisions of the Boundries Act 1857 and accordingly could not be the subject of a revision of valuation pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the Valuation (Ireland) Amendment Act 1854 which provides only for a revision of the valuation of lands the limits of which had become changed or altered; and

11

b (b)The lands comprised in Lot 88a, Pigeon House Road Pembroke East "A" Ward, in the County Borough of Dublin, occupied by the Appellant, are held under different titles and should consequently have been separately listed for valuation by reference to those titles by the local authority and that the failure to list the said lands separately deprived the Commissioner of Valuation of jurisdiction and vitiated the valuation placed by the Commissioner of Valuation on the said lots".

12

In support of this second ground Counsel for the Appellant relied on Switzer and Co. .v. Commissioner of Valuation 1902 2 IR 275. He also relied on that case and on the terms of Section 4 of the 1854 Act in support of his first ground. I will deal fully with both these grounds later in this judgment.

13

Counsel for the Commissioner in reply relied on the case of Alma .v. Dublin Corporation (1876) IO I.R. C.L.R. 476 in which it was decided that a newly constructed waterworks could be included in the Valuation Lists pursuant to a request under Section 4 of the 1854 Act, and in answer to the second ground he submitted that while the properties held under separate titles ought to have been valued separately by the Commissioner, this could now be done by the learned Circuit Court Judge apportioning the valuation between the two properties.

14

Counsel for the Appellant replied to this by submitting that the learned Circuit Court Judge did not have jurisdiction to apportion the single valuation between the separate hereditaments in Lot 88a in circumstances where the Commissioner had been requested to and had valued the lot as a single entity and had not placed a separate valuation on each hereditament. Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that on the facts found by the learned Circuit Court Judge Section 4 of the 1854 Act did not entitle the Commissioner to value the lands.

15

The learned Circuit Court Judge accepted the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and struck out the valuation made by the Commissioner.

16

The question submitted for the opinion of the Court as set out in paragraph 11 of the Case Stated is as follows:

"The opinion of the High Court is requested as to whether I was correct in law in holding that on the above facts as set out in paragraph 5 hereof the hereditaments comprised in the said lots cannot be the subject of a request for revision pursuant to Section 4 of the said Act of 1854, and further that if I am incorrect in so holding, having regard to the failure of the local authority to submit the said hereditaments for valuation by the Commissioner of Valuation in separate lots and having regard to the failure of the Commissioner of Valuation to value each such hereditament separately, should I in fixing the valuation of the lands the subject matter of these appeals apportion the single valuation placed by the Commissioner of Valuation between the said separate hereditaments where the Commissioner of Valuation has failed to do so and the local authority has failed to require him to do so, or should I, having regard to the said failure of the Commissioner of Valuation, allow the appeal in respect of Lot 88a by striking out the whole of the valuation placed thereon by the said Commissioner".

17

As indicated at the beginning of this judgment, two separate questions arise for consideration. I will start with whether the learned Circuit Court Judge was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • VA88.0.081 -85 – R & H Hall Plc
    • Ireland
    • Valuation Tribunal
    • 21 June 1990
    ...to the judgment of Blayney J. delivered on the 31st July 1989 in the case between Coal Distributors Limited v. Commissioner of Valuation [1990] ILRM 172 where the High Court allowed the appeal of the Commissioner of Valuation against the decision of Martin J. relating to certain hereditamen......
  • R & H Hall Plc v Commissioner of Valuation
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 16 December 1994
    ...v. Commissioner of Valuation| Citations: SWITZER V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1902 IR 275 COAL DISTRIBUTERS V COMMISSIONER FOR VALUATION 1990 ILRM 172 VALUATION ACT 1854 S4 VALUATION ACT 1852 S11 1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrondelivered the16th day of DECEMBER, 1994. 2This is a Case Stated ......
  • VA92.4.029 – Rainbow Bookshops
    • Ireland
    • Valuation Tribunal
    • 19 March 1993
    ...stated in the Switzer case 1902 Irish Reports, the Irish Bulk Liquid Storage Limited case - VA88/215 and the Coal Distributors case 1989 Irish Reports 472. He argued that the case McCusker Commissioner of Valuation 36 I.L.T.R. 176, indicated clearly that some provisions of the valuation cod......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT