Gael Linn Teo v Commissioner of Valuation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 May 1999
• Date: 18 May 1999
• Docket Number: [S.C. Nos. 255, 259 & 341 of 1998]
• Court: Supreme Court

Gael Linn Teo v. Commissioner of Valuation (Translation)

Gael Linn Teoranta

Applicant

and

The Commissioner of Valuation, The Attorney General and The Right Honourable The Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Dublin City, Respondents (Translation)

[S.C. Nos. 255, 259 & 341 of 1998]

Supreme Court

Rating and valuation - Exemption - Res judicata - Estoppel - Decision of Circuit Court regarding exemption of property from assessment for rates - Absence of change in circumstances - Whether such decision creates restriction on re-opening issue - Constitutional requirement to use fair procedures - Valuation Act, 1988 (No. 2), s.3(1).

Section 3(1) of the Valuation Act, 1988, provides:-

"An owner or occupier of any property, the rating authority or an officer of the Commissioner of Valuation may apply at any time for a revision of the valuation of any property entered in the valuation lists or for the inclusion therein of any property not so entered."

The applicant had in its possession three premises located within the area of responsibility of Dublin Corporation and which enjoyed an exemption from assessment for rates by virtue of a determination of the Circuit Court in 1987.

On the 9th November 1995, Dublin Corporation, as rating authority for the area in question, was informed that the Commissioner of Valuation had decided to review the status of the exemption. However, since the applicant was not given proper notice regarding the review, the High Court granted an order ofcertiorari by consent quashing the Commissioner of Valuation's decision.

The applicant sought further relief, including orders restraining Dublin Corporation from seeking to review the exemption enjoyed by the premises as long as the Circuit Court order in question remained in force and restraining the Commissioner of Valuation from seeking such a review as long as the user and status of the premises remained unchanged.

The High Court refused to grant such relief on the grounds that the doctrine ofres judicata did not pertain to the orders of the Circuit Court in relation to the said premises.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held by the Supreme Court (Hamilton C.J., Barrington, Keane and Lynch JJ.), in dismissing the appeal, 1, that the doctrine ofres judicata did not restrain the Commissioner of Valuation nor Dublin Corporation from using the statutory system under s. 3(1) of the Valuation Act, 1988, to re-open the issue of the exemption from liability for rates without first proving a change in circumstances.

Kildare County Council v. Keogh[1971] I.R. 330 followed.

2. That s. 3 of the Act of 1988 gave the owner or occupier, the rating authority or an officer of the Commissioner, the facility to re-open the issue of the exemption status of the premises at any time, notwithstanding a prior determination on the issue of law by a competent tribunal.

Kildare County Council v. Keogh[1971] I.R. 330 followed.East Donegal Co-Operative v. Attorney General[1970] I.R. 317;O'Brien v. Bord na Móna[1983] I.R. 255;Goodman International v. Mr. Justice Hamilton[1992] 2 I.R. 542 distinguished.

3. That the issue of liability for one year was not the same as the issue of liability for another year, although the issue of law in question may be exactly the same regarding liability to rates and taxes.

Kildare County Council v. Keogh[1971] I.R. 330 followed.Broken Hill Proprietary Co. v. Broken Hill Municipal Council[1926] A.C. 94;Caffoor v. Income Tax Comr.[1961] A.C. 584 approved.

4. That the fact that the legislature afforded the opportunity for a review of one year's valuation the following year, was not sufficient to sustain an estoppel.

Mayor of Limerick v. Comm. of Valuation (1872-73) I.R. 6 C.L. 420 approved.

Cases mentioned in this report:-

Broken Hill Proprietary Co. v. Broken Hill Municipal Council[1926] A.C. 94.

Caffoor v. Income Tax Comr.[1961] A.C. 584; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 794; [1961] 2 All E.R. 436.

East Donegal Co-Operative v. Attorney General[1970] I.R. 317; (1970) 104 I.L.T.R. 81.

Goodman International v. Mr. Justice Hamilton[1992] 2 I.R. 542; [1992] I.L.R.M. 145.

Kildare County Council v. Keogh(1953) 88 I.L.T.R. 45.

Kildare County Council v. Keogh[1971] I.R. 330.

Mayor of Limerick v. Comm. of Valuation (1872-73) I.R. 6 C.L. 420.

Ó Foghludha ó foghludha v. McClean[1934] I.R. 469.

O'Brien v. Bord na Móna [1983] I.R. 2565; [1983] I.L.R.M. 314.

Stát (MacFhearraigh) v. MacGamhnia (1983) I.R. (S.R.) 29.

Appeal from the High Court.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of Keane J.,infra.

The applicant appealed against the judgment and order of the High Court by notice of appeal dated the 31st August, 1998.

The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court (Hamilton C.J., O'Flaherty, Barrington, Keane and Lynch JJ.) on the 9th March, 1999. Following the resignation of O'Flaherty J., the parties agreed to accept the decision of four members of the Court.

Cur. adv. vult

Hamilton C.J. 18th May, 1999

I have read the judgment of Keane J. and I agree with it.

Barrington J.

I also agree with the judgement of Keane J.

Keane J.

This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court (Smyth J.) of the 31st October, 1997. The applicant (hereinafter "Gael Linn") is a limited company established to promote the Irish language. There is no dispute that the three premises which are the subject of this controversy: 26/27 Merrion Square, Dublin 2, Cabra Grand Cinema, 60A Quarry Road, Dublin 7 and Whitehall Grand Cinema 396/402 Collins Avenue, Dublin 9, were at all times in the possession of Gael Linn and that Gael Linn had an exemption in the valuation listings kept by the first respondent (hereinafter "the Commissioner") by virtue of the determination of...