Mitchelstown Co-Operative Society Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation

CourtHigh Court
Judgment Date29 May 1989
Docket Number[1989 No. 181 SS]
Date29 May 1989
Mitchelstown Co-Op Society v. Comr. for Valuation
Mitchelstown Co-Operative Society Limited
The Commissioner for Valuation, Respondent and Cork County Council, Notice Party
[1989 No. 181 SS]

High Court

Practice - Case stated - Requirements of a case stated - Whether statement of evidence constitutes a statement of facts - Function of appellate court - Valuation Act, 1988 (No. 2), s. 5.

A case stated should contain a clear statement of the facts as found by the Tribunal, a statement of the inferences drawn from those facts, the contentions of the parties and the determination of the Tribunal as it is not the function of the appeal court to determine the facts of a case. A recital of all the evidence given before the Tribunal and a statement that the Tribunal accepted this evidence did not constitute findings of fact.

So held by Blayney J. in returning a case stated to the Valuation Tribunal for amendment.

Emerson v. Hearty & Morgan [1946] N.I. 35 followed.

Case mentioned in this report:—

Emerson v. Hearty & Morgan [1946] N.I. 35.

Case stated.

Following a determination of the Valuation Tribunal dated the 6th December, 1988, the appellant declared its dissatisfaction in writing on the 16th December, 1988, and requested that the Tribunal state a case for the consideration of the High Court pursuant to s. 5 of the Valuation Act, 1988. The case was stated by the Tribunal on the 16th March, 1989.

The matter came before the High Court (Blayney J.) on 24th April, 1989. Before arguing the merits of the case stated counsel for the appellant argued that it was unsatisfactory in form and Blayney J. heard the parties on that point as a preliminary issue.

Blayney J.

I think that the case stated is unsatisfactory and should be sent back to the Tribunal. Since my decision involves important principles of law I will deliver a written judgment.

Cur. adv. vult.

Blayney J.

This is an appeal by way of case stated under s. 5 of the Valuation Act, 1988, (the Act of 1988) against certain decisions of the Valuation Tribunal (the Tribunal). It is the first appeal brought under the Act of 1988. When the appeal came before me, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that it would be difficult for this court to adjudicate upon the case in view of the form in which it was stated. Having considered the case stated and the submissions made on behalf of all the parties, I came to the conclusion that what the appellant was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • DPP (Travers) v Brennan
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 16 March 1998
    ...answers to those questions he should decide the case on the basis of those answers. Mitchelstown Co-op. Society v. Comr. for ValuationIR [1989] I.R. 210; Doyle v. HearneIR [1987] I.R. 601; Dolan v. Corn ExchangeIR [1973] I.R. 259 applied. 2. That the law created a hierarchy of assault type ......
  • Ag v Burns
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 6 December 2004
    ...PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51(1) EMERSON V HEARTY & MORGAN 1946 NI 35 MITCHELSTOWN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY V COMMISSIONER FOR VALUATION 1989 IR 210 EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN IRELAND & UNITED STATES 1983 ART XI Denham J. 1 1. This is an appeal by Robert Burns, the appellant, hereinafter referred ......
  • Citywest Logistical Ltd(Formerly know as Cassidy Wines Ltd) v The Revenue Commissioners
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 12 January 2018 the court unless there was no evidence at all to support them (see Mitchelstown Co-Op Society Ltd v. the Commissioner for Valuations [1989] I.R. 210 and Inspector of Taxes v. Hummingbird [1982] ILRM. 421, and McGinley v. Deciding Officer, Criminal Assets Bureau (Unreported, Supreme Cou......
  • James P Corey Transport Limited and Owen Jacobson and Belfast Harbour Commissioners
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland)
    • 27 January 2021
    ...should be entirely contained in the text of the case stated itself, not in any annexed document: Michelstown Co-op v Commr for Valuation [1989] IR 210. The duty to state the findings of fact is not met by merely appending the judge’s written judgment: DOE v Fair Employment Agency [1989] NI ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT