Nangles Nurseries v Commissioners of Valuation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice MacMenamin
• Judgment Date: 14 March 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IEHC 73
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [No. 70 S.S./2006]
• Date: 14 March 2008

[2008] IEHC 73

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 70 S.S./2006]

Nangles Nurseries v Commissioners of Valuation

IN THE MATTER OF A CASE STATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 39

OF THE VALUATION ACT, 2001

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION OF THE FOLLOWING

PREMISES:

VALUATION TRIBUNAL APPEAL NUMBER VA05/01/008 - PROPERTY

NUMBER 933808, NANGLES NURSERIES, CARRIGROHANE,

BALLINCOLLIG, COUNTY CORK.

BETWEEN/

NANGLES NURSERIES

APPELLANT

AND

COMMISSIONERS OF VALUATION

RESPONDENT

VALUATION ACT 2001 S9

VALUATION ACT 2001 S39(5)

VALUATION ACT 2001 S15

VALUATION ACT 2001 S15(2)

VALUATION ACT 2001 SCHED IV

VALUATION ACT 2001 S3

MARA v HUMMINGBIRD LTD 1982 ILRM 421

HENRY DENNY & SONS (IRL) LTD v MIN FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 1998 1 IR 34 5 ITR 238

PREMIER PERICLASE v VALUATION TRIBUNAL UNREP HIGH 24.6.1999 2000/15/5860

REVENUE COMMISSIONERS v DOORLEY 1933 IR 750

SAATCHI & SAATCHI ADVERTISING v MCGARRY 1998 2 IR 562

SLATTERY v FLYNN 2003 1 ILRM 450 2002 26 6727

VALUATION ACT 2001 S15(1)

KINSALE YACHT CLUB v CMSR OF VALUATION 1994 1 ILRM 457

INSPECTOR OF TAXES v KIERNAN 1981 IR 117 1982 ILRM 13

CHARLES MCCANN LTD v O CULACHAIN (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) 1986 IR 196

CRILLY v FARRINGTON LTD 2001 3 IR 251

MCGRATH v MCDERMOTT 1988 IR 258

INTERPRETATION ACT 2005 S5

INTERPRETATION ACT 2005 S5(1)

BENNION STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: A CODE 4ED 2002

INSPECTOR OF TAXES v KIERNAN 1981 IR 117

COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION v INTERNATIONAL MUSHROOMS 1994 3 IR 472 1994 2 ILRM 121 1994/10/3108

VALUATION ACT 2001 S30

VALUATION ACT 2001 S31

VALUATION ACT 2001 S35

VALUATION ACT 2001 S34

MITCHELSTOWN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY v COMMISSIONER FOR VALUATION 1989 IR 210

RATING

Valuation

Challenge to increase in valuation - Determination of valuation tribunal - Appeal by way of case stated - Nursery - Whether land developed for horticulture and thus not rateable - Whether tribunal entitled to adjudicate on issue not raised in notice of appeal or at hearing - Curial deference - Principles of statutory interpretation - Strict interpretation of statutes for rating - Impositions to be construed strictly in favour of rate payer - Exemptions to be interpreted strictly against rate payer - Whether collective relieving provision - Whether relieving provision with exceptions - Stipulated format of notice of appeal - Whether issue relating to container store properly before tribunal - Whether tribunal fell in error - Mara v Hummingbird Ltd [1982] ILRM 421, Henry Denny & Sons (Ireland) Ltd v Minister for Social Welfare [1998] 1 IR 34, Premier Periclase Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation (Unrep, Kelly J, 24/6/1999), Revenue Commissioners v Doorly [1933] IR 750, Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising v Megarry [1988] 2 IR 562, Slattery v Flynn [2003] ILRM 450, Kinsale Yacht Club v Commissioners of Valuation [1994] 1 ILRM 463, Inspector of Taxes v Kiernan [1982] ILRM 13, McCann v Ó Culacháin [1986] IR 196, Crilly v Farrington [2001] 3 IR 2001, McGrath v McDermott [1988] IR 258, Commissioner of Valuation v International Mushrooms Ltd [1994] 3 IR 481 and Mitchelstown Co-operative Agricultural Society v Commissioners of Valuation [1989] IR 210 considered - Valuation Act 2001 (No 13), ss 3, 9, 15 and 35- Case remitted to tribunal to deal with issue of container store but determination in relation to nursery upheld - (2006/705S - MacMenamin J - 14/3/2008) [2008] IEHC 73

Nangles Nurseries v Commissioners of Valuation

Facts: A case stated was brought as to determination made as to premises, that had revised upwards substantially a rateable valuation. The Tribunal concluded that a container store was not rateable. The issue arose as to whether the Valuation Tribunal determination was correct in fact and in law and whether it was entitled to adjudicate on the container store issue.

Held by the Supreme Court that certain property in the proceedings was not liable to rates. Neither the statutory form nor material attached to the appeal contained any reference to the container store. The Tribunal fell into error. The case was to be remitted back to the Tribunal to deal with the container store issue.

Reporter: E.F.

Mr. Justice MacMenamin

1 This is an appeal by way of case stated, primarily against a determination of the Valuation Tribunal that an area of 2.5 acres in a total area of 3 acres in the Nangle's premises at Carrigrohane, Ballincollig, County Cork, was land developed for horticulture and thus was property not rateable. The case stated is, apparently, the first pursuant to s. 9 of the Valuation Act,2001 ("the Act of 2001" or "the Act").

2 Pursuant to s. 39, sub-section (5) of the Act it is the duty of the court to hear and determine any question or questions of law arising on the case, and where necessary to reverse, affirm or amend a determination, or if necessary, to remit the matter to the Tribunal with the opinion of the court thereon. This case stated is brought on the application of the Commissioners of Valuation (the Commissioners) against certain determinations made in relation to the Nangles premises aforesaid. The parties in the title are named and identified in accordance with their standing before the Valuation Tribunal. To avoid confusion the parties are hereinafter referred to by their appropriate name, that is to say "Nangles", "the Commissioners" and "the Tribunal".

3 In order to understand the issues which arise in this case it is necessary to describe the relevant lands and to consider the circumstances in which the appeal arises. The old valuation of the lands in question was €19.05. In a determination published on 15^th June, 2004, the Commissioners revised the valuation to €120, obviously a substantial increase. The oral hearing of the appeal against this determination before the Valuation Tribunal took place on 1^st March, 2005 before Mr. Fred Devlin, FCS, FRICS, Chairman of that Tribunal division, Mr. Joseph Murray, Barrister at Law, and Mr. Maurice Ahern, Valuer. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr. Ronan Nangle, director of the company and Mr. Terence Dineen, a valuer, on behalf of the Commissioners.

4 The property concerned is described as a nursery/garden centre. It occupies a three acre site, now on the outer fringes of Cork City, at the junction of the Carrigrohane and Model Farm Roads. The property has been occupied by Nangles Nurseries, a family firm, for over 50 years. It is held under a 10-year lease from 1996 at a rent of €50,000 per annum. In recent years certain buildings on the land were constructed by the Nangle family comprising: (a) an office of 55.56 sq.m.; (b) a shop of 167.14 sq.m.; (c) a store of 152.36 sq.m.; (d) a container store of 29.52 sq.m. The remainder of the site, excluding the building curtilage, is used for the purposes of the business. Originally the enterprise specialised in rose production. There was no retail element. Gradually over the years there evolved a retail dimension to the business. The Nangles specialise in selling mature specimen plants, trees, instant hedging, and screening.

5 The Nangles operate another nursery farm in Aherla, County Cork. This is an area of some 60 acres, which the Commissioners accept is non-rateable. There was no material in the case stated before the court as to the precise wholesale/retail breakdown of the business of the nursery at Aherla, or as to why, exactly, one undertaking was deemed rateable in contrast with the other.

6 In the subject premises, up until late 2003, a shop unit was housed in a converted shed with one tiny office. It was described as a horticulturally-based retail unit. There the company sold seed potatoes, lawn fertiliser, onion sets, summer bedding and garden chemicals. Towards the end of 2003 the Nangle family made improvements to the retail section, built the offices, and created the storage area. A larger range of horticultural products are now stored, including pots and garden ornaments. The Nangles say the primary function of the site is in its function as a nursery, that is to say, the propagation and maintenance for sale of specimen plants to architects, designers, landscapers, construction companies, golf courses and private clients. The company also carries large quantities of single types of plants popular with landscapers. Also contained in the site is a garden centre containing plants, holding bays and two heeling-in frames as well as plastic 'tunnels' and a potting area. Pedestrian paths are provided. These permit customers to traverse the site in order to select the required plants or products.

7 Counsel for the Commissioners laid emphasis at the hearing before this Court on evidence that all the trees, bushes and plants in the Carrigrohane nursery are bought in and either potted or planted in the ground or for display purposes pending sale. These trees and plants are not grown from seed on that site. Between initial delivery and disposal, perhaps a period of several years, the various plants and trees are continuously tended so that they continue to flourish. Periodically the plants and shrubs are re-potted as necessary and are held either in the 'heeling-in' frames or in holding bays. Plants in the holding bays remain in pots, while those in the 'heeling-in' frames are embedded by the heel of a gardener's boot in the soil and there remain until sold. Bamboo plants are held in a plastic covered tunnel, or in holding frames appropriate to their size and nature. While no specific findings of fact were made by the Tribunal, no dispute arises on the matter which has been identified as being the facts upon which the Tribunal reached its ultimate determination.

8 The constructions on the land are basic. They are said to be of little commercial value. The shop and other ancillary buildings, with the exception of the store used solely for storing machinery and implements in connection with nursery...