Mitchelstown Co-Operative Society Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation

 
FREE EXCERPT

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 ACT1936

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 SOCIETY LIMITED
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|

Mr. Justice Barrington
1

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.

2

Judge Fawsitt has since retired.

3

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.

4

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.

5

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 units only.

6

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

7

(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.

8

(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 Valuation Lists were 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.

9

(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.

10

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:-

11

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

12

(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.

13

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).

14

He summarises the evidence of other witnesses at paragraphs 12, 13 and 14.

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

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL