Mitchelstown Co-Operative Society Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barrington
• Judgment Date: 27 July 1989
• Neutral Citation: 1989 WJSC-CC 1997
• Docket Number: 343 SS/88
• Court: Circuit Court
• Date: 27 July 1989

1989 WJSC-CC 1997

THE CIRCUIT COURT

CORK CIRCUIT COUNTY OF CORK

343 SS/88

158/88

MITCHELSTOWN CO-OP v. COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION ACTS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 10 AND 11 OF THE ANNUAL

REVISION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRELAND) AMENDMENT

ACT 1860

AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 31 (3) OF THE COURTS

OF JUSTICE ACT 1936

AND

IN THE MATTER OF APPEALS AGAINST THE VALUATION OF

HEREDITAMENTS AND PREMISES OF THE APPELLANTS -

Subject Number 1: VO LOT Number 4A and 5A

Townland of Brigown, Mitchelstown, County Cork.

Circuit Court Reference Numbers: VA9/1965

VA40/1969

VA8/1977

VA15/1980

VA26/1986

Subject Number 2: VO LOT Number: 1Ca3BabINOS,

Townland of Mitchelstown, E.D. Mitchelstown, County

Cork.

Circuit Court Reference Numbers: VA12/1971

VA53/1972

VA49/1973

VA8/1977

VA18/1980

VA73/1981

VA28/1986

Subject Number 3: VO LOT Number 51A Brigown, E.D.

Mitchelstown, County Cork.

Circuit Court Reference Numbers: VA8/1977

VA12/1979

VA30/1986

Subject Number 4: VO LOT Number 3Gb, Townland of

Mitchelstown, E.D. Mitchelstown, County Cork.

Circuit Court Reference Number: VA74/1981

MITCHELSTOWN CO-OP v. COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

Subject Number 5: VO LOT Number 6abcde 7, 8, 9, 10,

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16A

Townland Clonmel Street, E.D. Mitchelstown, County

Cork

Circuit Court Reference Numbers: VA8/1978

VA6/1980

VA72/1981

Subject Number 6: VO LOT Number 2A, 3 Townland

Brigown, E.D. Mitchelstown, County Cork.

Circuit Court Reference Numbers: VA55/1981

VA29/1986

Subject Number: 7 VO LOT Number: 1Cf Townland

Mitchelstown, E.D. Mitchelstown, County Cork.

Circuit Court Reference Numbers: VA17/1980

VA27/1986

BETWEEN/

MITCHELSTOWN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETYLIMITED

APPELLANT

AND

COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

RESPONDENT

Citations:

VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852 S12

ANNUAL REVISION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRL) AMDT ACT 1860 S7

Synopsis:

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Machinery"

Hereditament - Valuation - Assessment - Exception - Agricultural co-operative - Grain and milk silos - Whey, fuel and detergent tanks - Whether such equipment was machinery - Whether equipment was rateable as buildings - (1988/343 SS - Barrington J. - 27/7/89)

|Mitchelstown Co-Operative Agricultural Society v. Commissioner of Valuation|

RATES

Hereditament

Valuation - Assessment - Exception - Machinery - Agricultural co- operative - Grain and milk silos - Whey, detergent and fuel tanks - Whether such equipment was machinery or was rateable as buildings - Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, s. 12 - Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1860, ss. 7, 11 - (1988/343 SS - Barrington J. - 27/7/89)

|Mitchelstown Co-Operative Agricultural Society v. Commissioner of Valuation|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barringtondelivered the 27th day of July, 1989.

2 This is a case stated by Judge Sean Mac D. Fawsitt, Circuit Judge assigned to the Cork Circuit and is dated the 9th day of May 1988.

3 Judge Fawsitt has since retired.

4 The case stated runs into some 27 pages of typescript and contains references to numerous maps, drawings, photographs and exhibits. It should be regarded as appended to this Judgment.

5 There were in fact 23 Appeals before the learned trial judge but many of them raised identical or similar issues and the learned trial judge was able to deal with the matter under seven subject numbers.

6 The Appellant Company is an Industrial and Provident Society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts having its registered office at New Square, Mitchelstown in the County of Cork where it has a large and extensive manufacturing complex. Its principal activity is the manufacture and distribution of dairy and meat products, grain processing and general trading. Its main processing units are located in and near Mitchelstown and the Appeals are concerned with these unitsonly.

7 The grounds of appeal set forth in the Notices of Appeal are summarised by the learned trial judge as follows:

8 (1) That all the grain silos/bins which were rated as buildings in the buildings column of the Valuation Lists were not buildings within the meaning of Section 12 of the 1852 Act and were not rateable as such and further that such grain silos/bins with their ancillary apparatus and equipment were exempt from rating pursuant to Section 7 of the 1860 Act as non-motive power machinery.

9 (2) That all the milk silos/tanks, whey tanks, cream tanks, detergent tanks, acid tanks, caustic tanks, heavy fuel oil tanks with their ancillary apparatus and equipment respectively and the weighbridge which were rated as buildings in the buildings column of the ValuationListswere not buildings within the meaning of Section 12 of the 1852 Act and further that such tanks with their ancillary apparatus and equipment and weighbridges were exempt from rating pursuant to Section 7 of the 1860 Act as non-motive power machinery.

10 (3) That all tanks, regardless of function, use or operation which were rated as buildings in the buildings column of the Valuation Lists were not buildings within the meaning of Section 12 of the 1852 Act and were not rateable as such.

11 On the hearing before the learned trial judge it was admitted that all the statutory requirements regarding Valuation Appeals had been complied with and that the parties were properly before the Court. It was also agreed that the quantum of rateable valuation was not in dispute and that the issue for the Court to decide in each case was:-

12 (a) The rateability or otherwise of the disputed items as buildings in the buildings column of the Valuation List.

13 (b) The exemption from rating of certain grain silos/bins, milk silos, cream tanks, detergent tanks, acid tanks, caustic tanks, heavy fuel oil tanks with their ancillary apparatus and equipment and all weighbridges as being machinery in the manufactory other than that used for the production of motive power.

14 In the case stated the learned trial judge summarises the evidence of the Appellant's Engineer, Mr. Timothy Murphy at paragraph 9 subparagraphs (1) to (51); of Mr. Michael McNally,the Appellant's grain manager at paragraph 10 subparagraphs (1) to (15); and of Mr. Arthur O'Grady, Chief Group Engineer of the Appellant Company, at paragraph 11 subparagraphs (1) to (20).

15 He summarises the evidence of other witnesses at paragraphs 12, 13 and14.

16 He then goes on to state at paragraph 15:-

"I accepted and found the facts as set out in paragraphs 9 (1) to (51) inclusive, 10 (1) to (15) inclusive and 11 (1) to (20)inclusive."

17 The effect would appear to be that the learned trial judge accepted all the evidence as to facts (including evidence of expert opinion) set out in those paragraphs. This evidence was clearly led by Counsel who was totally familiar with recent decisions on Valuation Law and was designed to bring the present cases within those decisions. There is nothing wrong with that. Clearly it is Counsel's job to advise his proofs and marshal the evidence in such a way as to achieve the maximum effect for his client within the existing law. No one can criticize him for that. Nevertheless, reading...