Commissioner of Valuation v International Mushrooms Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Keane
• Judgment Date: 12 April 1994
• Neutral Citation: 1994 WJSC-HC 3108
• Docket Number: 1495 SS/1993,[1993 No. 1495 SS.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 12 April 1994

INTERNATIONAL MUSHROOMS LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION ACTS 1852 TO 1988 AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION OF PREMISES AND GROUNDS AT LOT

1B IN THE TOWNLAND OF BALREASK OLD, IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION

OF NAVAN RURAL, IN THE RURAL DISTRICT OF NAVAN AND COUNTY OF

MEATH.

BETWEEN

INTERNATIONAL MUSHROOMS LIMITED

RESPONDENTS

AND

COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

APPELLANT

1994 WJSC-HC 3108

1495 SS/1993

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

RATES

Hereditaments

Rateability - Building - Use - Mushrooms - Spore - Production - Industry - Mushrooms cultivated elsewhere - Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, ss. 12, 14 - Valuation Act, 1986, ss. 2, 3 - (1993/ 1495 SS - Keane J. - 12/4/94)- [1994] 3 IR 472 - [1994] 2 ILRM 121

|International Mushrooms Ltd. v. Commissioner of Valuation|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Farm buildings"

Hereditaments - Rateability - Exemption - Industry - Mushrooms - Spore - Production - Whether occupier's premises were an exempted building - (1993/ 1495 SS - Keane J. - 12/4/94)- [1994] 3 IR 472 - [1994] 2 ILRM 121

|International Mushrooms Ltd. v. Commissioner of Valuation|

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Keane delivered the12th day of April 1994

2 This is an appeal by way of case stated by the Commissioner of Valuation from a determination by the Valuation Tribunal. The facts as agreed or found by the tribunal are fully set out in the Case Stated and may be summarised as follows.

3 The premises which were the subject matter of the determination consist of an industrial building located in the Beechmount Industrial Estate on the outskirts of Navan. It has a brick faced two storey office section, and an area covered by a double skin apex cladded roof on steel and concrete portal frame trusses. The building also contains air conditioned cold room storage facilities. The total area of the premises is 25,583 square feet with ancillary plant rooms of 167 square feet. Only 17,956 square feet were included in the valuation under appeal, the remainder consisting of the storage and cold room facility which was incomplete at the relevant date. It is agreed that the subject premises at all material times were used in the production of mushroom spawn from which ultimately mushrooms were cultivated. The mushrooms themselves, however, were not cultivated on the premises.

4 At the hearing before the Valuation Tribunal, the Respondents submitted that the premises were not rateable. The tribunal upheld that contention but, at the request of the Appellant, stated a case to this Court, the question being in the following terms:

"The opinion of this Honourable Court is requested as to whether"

(1) The tribunal was correct in law in holding that the hereditament the subject of this appeal is not rateable?"

5 It is convenient at this point to set out the relevant statutory provisions. Section 12 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act 1852 provides that:-

"For the purposes of this Act the following hereditaments shall be deemed to be rateable hereditaments; viz, all Lands, Buildings, and opened Mines, all Commons and Rights of Common, and all other Profits to be had or received or taken out of any Land; [and in the case of Land or Buildings used exclusively for public, scientific or charitable Purposes, as hereinafter specified, Half the annual Rent derived by the Owner or other Person interested in the same so far as the same can or may be ascertained by the said Commissioner of Valuation;] and all Rights of Fishery; all Canals, Navigations, and Rights of Navigation; all Railways and Tramroads; all Rights of Way and other Rights or Easements over Land, and the Tolls levied in respect of such Rights and Easements, and all other Tolls."

6 The words in square brackets were repealed by S.3 and the Schedule to the Local Government (Rateability of Rents) (Abolition) Act, 1971.

7 Section 14 of the Act of 1852 provides that:

"No Hereditament or Tenement shall be liable to be rated in respect of any Increase in the Value thereof arising from any Drainage, Reclamation, or Embankment from the Sea or any Lake or River, or any erection of Farm, Outhouse, or Office Buildings, or any permanent agricultural Improvement as specified under (10 & 11 Victoriae, c.32.s.4) made or executed thereon within Seven Years next before the making of such Valuation or Revision."

8 Section 2 of the Valuation Act 1986 provides that:

"For the purposes of the Act of 1852, property falling within any of the categories of fixed property specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1852 (inserted by this Act) shall be deemed to be rateable hereditaments in addition to those specified in Section 12 of that Act."

9 The Schedule, as inserted by S.3 of the Act of 1986, is in the following terms:

"Ref. No. Categories of Fixed Property

10 1. All constructions affixed to lands or tenements, other than buildings referred to in Section 14 of this Act.

11 2. All lands developed for any purpose other than agriculture, horticulture, forestry or sport, irrespective of whether or not such land is surfaced, and including any constructions affixed thereto which pertain to the development.

12 3. All cables, pipelines and conduits (whether underground, on the surface or overhead), and including all pylons, supports and other constructions which pertain to them.

13 4. All fixed moorings, piers and docks.

14 5. Plant falling within any of the categories of plant specified in the Schedule to the Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act 1860 (inserted by the Valuation Act 1986)."

15 It is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the hereditament in this case comes within the category of "farm ... buildings" referred to in Section 14 of the Act of 1852 and that, as a result, it is exempt from rateability. Alternatively, it is submitted that the hereditament has been exempted from rateability by virtue of the insertion of the Schedule set out in S.3 of the 1986 Act, since it can properly be described as falling into the category of "lands developed for ...... horticulture ... and including any constructions affixed thereto which pertain to the development" appearing at Reference No. 2 in the Schedule.

16 It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that Section 14 of the Act of 1852 provided for an exemption in respect of an increase in valuation of a farm by reason of the erection of farm buildings and had no application in the present case where there was no farm. The Appellant relied, in this context, on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nixon and Quinn v. the Commissioner of Valuation, (1980) IR 340. It was further submitted that the hereditament clearly came within the category of "buildings" within the meaning of S.12 of the Act of 1852 and, accordingly, was a rateable hereditament. It was submitted that the only effect of S.2 and S.3 of the Act of 1986 was to increase the categories of fixed property which were to be deemed to be rateable hereditaments for the purposes of the Act of 1852 and not to afford any exemption to hereditaments hitherto deemed to be rateable.

17 I shall consider first the applicability of S.14 of the Act of 1852. It seems reasonably clear that the intention of the legislature in enacting that section was to ensure that agricultural lands which were improved by the carrying out of the works referred to in the section should not attract an increased valuation as a result. If the words of the section are given their ordinary and natural meaning, I do not think that the expression "farm ... buildings" would be an appropriate description of a building located in an industrial estate such as the building with which I am concerned. It is not, in my view, a relevant consideration that...