Health Service Executive (HSE) v Commissioners for Valuation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice John MacMenamin
• Judgment Date: 13 June 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IEHC 178
• Docket Number: [2008 No. 11 SS]
• Date: 13 June 2008

[2008] IEHC 178

THE HIGH COURT

COMMERCIAL

No. 11 SS/2008

Health Service Executive (HSE) v Commissioners for Valuation

BETWEEN

THE HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPELLANT

AND

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR VALUATION

RESPONDENTS

VALUATION ACT 2001 S15(3)

VALUATION ACT 2001 S39(5)

BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 5ED 2008

REVENUE COMMISSIONERS v DOORLEY 1933 IR 750

KEOGH v CRIMINAL ASSETS BUREAU (CAB) & ORS 2004 2 IR 159 2004 2 ILRM 481 2004/26/6080

VALUATION ACT 2001 SCHED 3

VALUATION ACT 2001 S3

VALUATION ACT 2001 SCHED 3(1)(o)

VALUATION ACT 2001 S15(1)

VALUATION ACT 2001 S15(2)

VALUATION ACT 2001 S15(4)

VALUATION ACT 2001 S16

VALUATION ACT 2001 S59

VALUATION ACT 2001 SCHED 14(4)

COMYN v AG 1950 IR 142

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) ACT 1919

CONSTITUTION ART 10

WEBB v IRELAND 1988 IR 353

BYRNE v IRELAND 1972 IR 241

COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS v KAVANAGH 1962 IR 216

LANDLORD & TENANT ACT 1931

CORK CO COUNCIL & BOURKE v OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS 1945 IR 561

HOGAN & MORGAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN IRELAND 3ED 1998 113

HEALTH ACT 1970

HEALTH ACT 2004 SCHED 3

HEALTH ACT 2004 S6(1)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S6(2)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S7(1)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S7(4)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S7(5)(a)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S7(5)(b)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S7(5)(c)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S7

HEALTH ACT 2004 S2(2)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S2

POISONS ACT 1961

VALUATION ACT 2001 S10

HEALTH ACT 2004 S11

HEALTH ACT 2004 S13

HEALTH ACT 2004 S14(2)(a)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S17(5)(b)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S18(1)(a)

COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL ACT 1866 S20

COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL ACT 1866 S21

APPROPRIATION ACT 2006

CONSTITUTION ART 28.4

HEALTH ACT 2004 S34

HEALTH ACT 2004 S36

HEALTH ACT 2004 S29

HEALTH ACT 2004 S30

HEALTH ACT 2004 S31

HEALTH ACT 2004 S17

HEALTH ACT 2004 S17(5)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S21(8)

PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGEMENT (RECRUITMENT & APPOINTMENTS) ACT 2004 S22

HEALTH ACT 2004 S22(4)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S23(7)

HEALTH ACT 2004 S23(8)

INSPECTOR OF TAXES v KIERNAN 1981 IR 117

SLATTERY v FLYNN 2003 1 ILRM 450 2002/26/6727

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) ACT 1838 S63

RATING

Valuation Tribunal

Point of law - Rateable property - Exempt property - Relevant property - Whether property of Health Service Executive exempt property - Legal status of Health Service Executive -- Whether Health Service Executive "office of State" "semi-State body" or "the State" - Whether tribunal correct in finding that Health Service Executive "office of State" - Concept of "the State" - Definitions construction and general scheme of Act -- Rules of statutory interpretation - Objective intention of Oireachtas - Noscitur a sociis - Applicable test - Nature and function of Health Service Executive - Revenue Commissioners v Doorley [1933] IR 750, Keogh v Criminal Assets Bureau [2004] IESC 32, [2004] 2 IR 159, Comyn v Attorney General [1950] IR 142, Webb v Ireland [1988] IR 353, Commissioners of Public Works v Kavanagh [1962] IR 216, Cork County Council v Commissioners of Public Works [1945] IR 561, Inspector of Taxes v Kiernan [1981] IR 117, Slattery v Flynn [2003] ILRM 450 considered - Valuation Act 2001 (No 13), ss 3, 10, 15, 16, 39(5) and 69, sch 3(1)(o) and 14(4) - Health Act 2004 (No 42), ss 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 34 and 36 - Constitution of Ireland 1937, arts 10 and 28.4 - Health Service Executive deemed to be the State and therefore not rateable (2008/11SS - MacMenamin J - 13/6/2008) [2008] IEHC 178

Health Service Executive v Commissioners for Valuation

Facts: On appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Valuation Tribunal as to premises in Limerick, the issue arose as to whether the property of the HSE was rateable and what the legal status of the HSE was. The High Court was thus asked to determine whether the HSE was "the State", was an "office of the State" or a "semi-State" body and whether the HSE had to be interpreted functionally.

Held by MacMenamin J. that the Tribunal was not correct in concluding that the HSE was an office of the State but rather was "the State." The lands the subject of the action were to be exempt pursuant to the Valuation Act 2001.

Reporter: E.F.

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice John MacMenamin dated the 13th day of June, 2008.

Introduction

2 1. On 22 ^nd January, 2007 the Valuation Tribunal heard evidence and submissions on behalf of the appellant and respondent in an appeal brought before it pursuant to notice of appeal dated 27 ^th September, 2006. The appeal was against a determination of the respondents ("the Commissioners") in relation to offices held by the Health Service Executive ("the HSE") at lot No. 3G/A Castletroy, Ballyvarra, Limerick, in the County of Limerick. The Tribunal issued a written determination on 26 ^th March, 2007, to the effect that the appeal be upheld, and that the subject property be listed as "relevant property", and therefore not rateable. This decision was appealed by the Commissioners to this Court. It now falls for determination in accordance with law. In essence, the Commissioners contended before the Tribunal that the HSE should be identified, not as an (exempt) 'office of State', but rather as a 'semi-State body' liable to rates therefore rendering the subject property rateable.

3 2. For reasons set out below, the essential issue for determination now is somewhat broader; it is as to the legal status of the HSE itself. Is it, in law, 'the State'; an 'office of State; ' or a 'semi-State' body? The answers to these questions determine if its property comes within the terms of exempt, or 'relevant property' within the definitions contained in the Valuation Act 2001 ("the 2001 Act").

4 3. By virtue of s. 15(3) of that Act it is provided:

"Subject to section 16, relevant property, being a building or part of a building, land or a waterway or a harbour directly occupied by the State (including any land or building occupied by any Department or office of State, the Defence Forces or the Garda Síochána or used as a prison or place of detention), shall not be rateable." (emphases added).

5 The italicised words are considered specifically in this judgment.

The subject property

6 4. The property in question comprises of a single storey office acquired by the HSE in 2002. It is located at Plassey Technological Park, one mile east of Limerick city centre. It was inspected by the Revision Officer on 10 ^th May, 2006. A valuation was assessed in the sum of €370. It was deemed rateable by that officer. Areas of the property are used for a very wide range of functions which come under the aegis of the HSE. These are described below. The Valuation Tribunal determined that the HSE was an 'office of State' and therefore that the subject property was not rateable.

Jurisdiction

7 5. By virtue of s. 39(5) of the 2001 Act, the High Court shall determine any question or questions of law arising on the case and shall reverse, affirm or amend the determination in respect of which the case has been stated, or may remit the matter to the Tribunal with the opinion of the court, or make such other order as the court shall think fit.

8 6. Thus, the remit of this Court is not now confined to a narrow consideration of affirmation or denial of the Tribunal's conclusion. By order of the High Court dated 11 ^th February, 2008 (Kelly J.) the following additional question was identified as one to be considered and determined by the court, that is to say, whether the HSE is in fact 'the State'. This is in addition to a consideration of the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal that the evidence was an 'office of State' as opposed to a 'semi-State body.' That order of Kelly J. was not appealed. Thus, it now falls to this Court to determine these questions as now identified.

Interpretation of the Act of 2001

9 7. Construction of the terms of the 2001 Act necessitates the application of strict rules of statutory interpretation. These rules require the court to commence with the literal interpretation of the statutory provisions and from there, if, (but only if) the literal words produce a result which is absurd, to then seek the objective intention of the Oireachtas. However, the primary means of ascertaining legislative intent is in the words actually used by the legislature, interpreted literally. Regard may also be had to other provisions of the Act, including its long title.

10 8. In this case it is also necessary to deal with the principle of statutory interpretation known as ' noscitur a sociis'. This principle has the effect of allowing for the elaboration of the literal meaning of a word or phrase by process of interpretation of associated or closely linked words in the statute and, in particular by adherence to the principle that the interpretation of general words cannot be read in isolation: that their content derives from their context. Thus, here the Commissioners urge that the subsection, in particular the terms 'the State' or 'office of State', should be interpreted by their association or connection with the words following "the State ..." such as Department of State, the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána, etc.

11 9. In this process one must recollect that in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation 5 ^th Ed., (London, 2008) the author observes that:

"The drafter may have specified certain terms not so as to give colour to a general phrase but to prevent any doubt as to whether they are included. Viscount Dilhorne said that where an Act defines a thing as including specified matters it is not always right to 'interpret the general words in light of the particular instances given'. He added: 'It is a familiar device of a draftsman to state expressly that certain matters are to be treated as coming within a definition to avoid argument on whether they did or not.' ( IRC v....