Kerry County Council v Commissioner of Valuation
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 31 July 1934 |
Date | 31 July 1934 |
Court | Supreme Court (Irish Free State) |
High Court
Supreme Court
Local Government - Rates - Offices and board-room of County Council - Rateability - Hereditaments of a "public nature" - "Occupied for the public service" - Meaning of "public" - Poor Relief (Ir.) Act, 1838 (1 & 2 Vict., c. 56), sects, 61, 63 - Valuation (Ir.) Amendment Act,1854 (17 Vict. c. 8), sect 2.
A building used as the offices and board-room of a County Council is not a hereditament "of a public nature" and "occupied for the public service" and therefore cannot be distinguished as such by the Commissioner of Valuation in his Valuation List, so as to be deemed to be exempt from assessment for poor rate under sect. 2 of the Valuation (Ir.) Amendment Act, 1854.
So held by the Supreme Court, affirming the High Court.Corporation of Cork v. Commissioner of Valuation, [1916] 2 I.R, 77, followed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court.
The Commissioner of Valuation placed a valuation of £150 on the offices, board-room and caretaker's apartments of the Kerry County Council, situate at Ashe Memorial Hall, Denny Street, Tralee, Co. Kerry.
The County Council appealed from this valuation to the Circuit Court on the grounds that the said premises were dedicated to or used for public purposes, or were premises of a public nature, and were not rateable, and that no valuation should be put thereon; or, in the alternative, that the said premises should be distinguished or marked in the Valuation List as exempt, on the grounds aforesaid; and, in the further alternative, that the said rateable valuation was excessive.
The Circuit Court Judge dismissed the appeal, holding himself bound by the decision of the former Court of Appeal in Corporation of Cork v. Commissioner of Valuation(2).
Very little evidence as to the facts of the case was given at the hearing of the appeal, but it was admitted that the premises were used as a board-room and as offices for the administrative work of the County Council. From the decision of the Circuit Court Judge the County Council appealed to the High Court.
Pursuant to the leave thus given, the Kerry County Council appealed to the Supreme Court (1).
Sullivan P. :—
The Circuit Court Judge decided this case in favour of the Commissioner of Valuation, saying that he felt bound to do so by the decision in the case of Corporation of Cork v.Commissioner of Valuation(1). On this appeal counsel for the appellants endeavoured to distinguish that case from the present case, and to satisfy us that the decision of the Circuit Court Judge was wrong.
In that case the Court had to determine whether "municipal purposes" were "public purposes" within the meaning of sect. 2 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 8, which exempts from rating hereditaments of a public nature and used for public purposes. In his judgment in the King's Bench Division Chief Baron Palles deals with the meaning of the word"public" (at p. 88). "Speaking generally," he said, "that word may be used in reference to property in any of three senses:—(1) as that which belongs to the Crown as the government of the country; (2) as that in which each member of the public has an interest, as, for instance, a public road; and (3) as that in which each member of a limited and defined class of the public has an interest, as,e.g., the ratepayers of a particular union, barony, county, or city."
The premises in question in that case were "public"only in the third sense indicated by the Chief Baron, but he arrived at the conclusion, in which the other members of the Court concurred, that the premises were used for public purposes and as such were exempt from liability for poor rate. On appeal by the Commissioner of Valuation the decision of the Court of King's Bench was reversed by the Court of Appeal. In the latter Court the Lord Chancellor adopted the summary of Palles C.B. of the three classes of cases which may have to be considered where exemption is claimed on the ground that premises are used for public purposes, and having reviewed the relevant authorities at length he states his opinion in the following words:—"I am of opinion that the decision in the Londonderry Bridge Case(2), adopted in the Sligo Harbour Case(3), is an authority not merely extending the exemption to the second class of cases mentioned in the summary of the Lord Chief Baron, but excluding by implication the third class, and, therefore, I think that the decision of the Court below was wrong, and should be reversed." Cherry L.C.J. and Molony L.J. concurred in that opinion.
In the present case I think the Circuit Court Judge was right in holding on the evidence before him that the premises in question came within the third class. If so, he was right in accepting the principle established by the Court of Appeal. I think this Court should also accept it, giving the appellant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Hanna J. :—
I concur in the judgment of the President and in the reasons he has stated, and have nothing to add.
Cur. adv. vult.
Kennedy C.J. :— |
This appeal is concerned with the claim of the County Council of Kerry that the offices and board-room of the Council situate in Tralee be distinguished by the Commissioner of Valuation in his Valuation Lists as "of a public nature" and "occupied for the public service" under sect. 2 of the Valuation (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1854 (17 Vict. c. 8), and so to be deemed exempt from all assessment for the relief of the destitute poor and for grand jury and county rates.
The appeal came in the first instance before the Judge of the Circuit Court at Tralee (Mr. Circuit Judge McElligott) who, holding himself bound by the decision in Cork Corporation v. Commissioner of Valuation(8), though disapproving of that decision, rejected the claim of the County Council and dismissed the appeal. The County Council appealed to the High Court where it was heard by Sullivan P.
and Hanna J. These learned Judges, deferring to the same authority, dismissed the appeal, but gave a certificate that a question of law was involved of such importance as to befit to be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal has accordingly been taken to this Court by the County Council.The proof of facts on the original hearing was very defective but the appeal has proceeded on an agreed basis of fact, viz.:—that the case is concerned with the offices and board-room of the County Council of Kerry and that the offices and board-room are used exclusively for the purposes of the business of the County Council.
This Court has recently decided in the case of McGahan v.The Commissioner of Valuation (not yet reported) that the exemptions from assessment for the relief of the poor, to which sect. 2 of the Valuation (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1854, refers, are those specified in sect. 63 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838 (1 & 2 Vict. c. 56), and accordingly that the interpretation of terms and expressions relating to exemptions used in sect. 2 of the Valuation Act of 1854, is governed by the interpretation of such terms and expressions as used in sect. 63 of the Poor Relief Act of 1838, or, in other words, that the exemptions from rateability are to be ascertained from the latter section. The relevant exemption is stated in sect. 63 of the Act of 1838, thus:—"any building, land, or hereditament dedicated to or used for public purposes." The contention of the appellant is that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Port of Cork Company v Commissioner of Valuation
...UNION V LONDON BRIDGE COMMISSIONERS 1868 IR 2 CL 577 CORP OF CORK V CMR OF VALUATION 1916 2 IR 95 KERRY CO COUNCIL V CMR OF VALUATION 1934 IR 527 TRUSTEES OF MAYNOOTH COLLEGE V CMRS OF VALUATION 1956 IR 221 FORBAIRT V CMR OF VALUATION APPEAL NO VA97/4/030 PLASSEY TRUST CO LTD V CMR OF VALU......
-
Port of Cork Company v Commissioner of Valuation
...& ORS V MERSEY DOCKS & HARBOUR BOARD 11 HL 443 MAYOR OF LIMERICK V CMSR OF VALUATION IR 6 CL 420 KERRY CO COUNCIL V CMSR OF VALUATION 1934 IR 527 TRINITY COLLEGE V CMSR OF VALUATION 1919 2 IR 493 HARBOURS ACT 1996 S8(3) HARBOURS ACT 1996 S11(1) HARBOURS ACT S12(1) HARBOURS ACT S17(2) HARBOU......
-
Maynooth College, Trustees of v Commissioner of Valuation
...214. (6) [1904] 2 I. R. 429. (7) [1911] 2 I. R. 593: on appeal [1912] 2 I. R. 328. (8) [1916] 2 I. R. 77. (9) [1919] 2 I. R. 493. (10) [1934] I. R. 527. (1) I. R. 2 C. L. 577. (2) 11 H. L. Cas. 443. (1) I. R. 6 C. L. 420. (2) I. R. 2 C. L. 577. (3) I. R. 6 C. L. 561. (1) I. R. 2 C. L. 577. ......
-
Dublin County Council v Westlink Toll Bridge Ltd
...Union v. Londonderry Bridge Commissioners(1868) I.R. 2 C.L. 577; 19 L.T. 132. Kerry County Council v. Commissioner of Valuation [1934] I.R. 527. Lancashire Telephone Company v. Overseers of Manchester (1884) 14 Q.B.D. 267; 54 L.J.M.C. 63; 52 L.T. 793; 49 J.P. 724; 33 W.R. 203; 1 T.L.R. 111.......