Premier Periclase Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Kelly
• Judgment Date: 24 June 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] IEHC 8
• Court: High Court
• Date: 24 June 1999

PREMIER PERICLASE LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION ACTS, 1852– 1988 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION OF THE HEREDITAMENT DESCRIBED AS PERICLASE WORKS (PART OF) AND GROUNDS AT MAP REFERENCE 24 BC, TOWNLAND OF NEWTONSTALABAN, E.D. ST. PETER'S VOL 1 RD LOUTH

BETWEEN

PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED

APPELLANT

AND

COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

RESPONDENT

[1999] IEHC 8

Appeal No. VA 2/015/96

774 SS/1998

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis

Revenue

Case-stated; valuation; hereditaments; non-rateability; appeal from decision of Valuation Tribunal; respondent used five tanks in order to produce magnesium hydroxide precipitate; precipitate used to produce unreactive periclase; Valuation Tribunal had held tanks fell within exemption from valuation under the Schedule to the Valuation Act, 1986, in respect of constructions which are designed or used primarily to induce a process of change in a substance; whether Tribunal correct in so holding; Ref. No. 1 of Sched. to Valuation Act, 1860, as inserted by s.8, Valuation Act, 1986; s.7, Valuation Act, 1860, as substituted by s.7, Valuation Act, 1986.

Held: Determination of Tribunal was one of primary fact that was open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it; Court could not interfere with the determination.

Premier Periclase Ltd v. Commissioner of Valuation High Court: Kelly J. 24/06/1999

The Appellant company owns and operates a periclase manufacture facility consisting, inter alia, of five large tanks. The Valuation Tribunal decided on appeal dated 8 November 1994 that the said tanks were exempt from rates. At the request of the Commissioner of Valuation a case was stated from a decision of the Valuation Tribunal dated 13 October 1997. The opinion of the court was sought as to whether the Tribunal was correct to have deemed the constructions to be non-rateable, and further, whether it should have also examined them under the Valuation Act, 1852 and the Valuation Act, 1860, section 7(1)(a). The written judgment of the Tribunal was examined. The applicant contended that the Tribunal had erred in its findings and in the test applied to the facts. The jurisdiction of the court, on a case stated, to disturb the findings of the Valuation Tribunal is limited to circumstances where the findings of fact are such that there was no evidence whatever to support them. If the conclusions do not show that a mistaken view of law has been adopted then they should only be set aside if the inferences drawn were ones that no reasonable Commissioner could have made. The Tribunal was open to find that the tanks in question were designed to induce a process of change and thus exempt from rates. The court so held in answering case stated.

Citations:

VALUATION ACT 1860 S7(2)

VALUATION ACT 1986 S7(2)

VALUATION ACT 1860 SCHED

VALUATION ACT 1986 S8

VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852

VALUATION ACT 1986 S2

VALUATION ACT 1986 S3

VALUATION ACT 1860 S7(1)(a)

VALUATION ACT 1986 S7

BEAMISH V CRAWFORD 1980 ILRM 149

PFIZER CHEMICAL CORP V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION UNREP LAVAN 28.7.1984 1994/13/3918

CARIBMOLASSES CO LTD V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1991 1 IR 379

MIDLAND MALTING CO LTD V COMMISSSIONER OF VALUATION UNREP CONNELLAN VAL TRIB 14.6.1991

MIDLAND MALTING CO LTD V COMMISSSIONER OF VALUATION UNREP ABBOTT VAL TRIB 30.5.1990

NORTH KERRY MILK PRODUCTS LTD V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION UNREP O'FLAHERTY VAL TRIB 21.3.1990 1998/27/10979

GOLDEN VALE FOOD PRODUCTS LTD V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION UNREP O'FLAHERTY VAL TRIB 12.6.1989

SIUCRA EIREANN CPT V CORK CO COUNCIL & COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION UNREP VAL TRIB

CARBERRY MILK PRODUCTS V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION UNREP VAL TRIB

DENIS COAKLEY & CO V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1996 2 ILRM 90

TRUSTEES OF KINSALE YACHT CLUB V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1994 1 ILRM 457

INSPECTOR OF TAXES V KIERNAN 1981 IR 117

MARA V HUMMINGBIRD LTD 1982 ILRM 421

O'KEEFFE V BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39

HENRY DENNY & SONS (IRL) LTD V MIN FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 1998 1 IR 34

SOCIAL WELFARE (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1993 S271

VALUATION ACT 1986 S8(1)

1 Mr. Justice Kelly delivered the 24th day of June 1999.

INTRODUCTION

2 This is a Case Stated by the Valuation Tribunal. It was stated at the request of the Commissioner of Valuation. He was dissatisfied with a decision of the Tribunal dated the 13th October 1997 which held that five tanks used by Premier Periclase Limited (the Company) were exempt (non-rateable) under Reference No. 1 of the Schedule to the ValuationAct, 1860 as inserted by Section 8 of the Valuation Act, 1986.

3 The opinion of this Court is sought as to whether the Tribunal was correct in this determination. Two subsidiary questions are also posed for the opinion of the Court. They are whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that where constructions are deemed non-rateable pursuant to Section 7(2) of the Valuation Act, 1860 (as substituted by Section 7(2) of the Valuation Act, 1986) and the Schedule to the Valuation Act, 1860 (as substituted by Section 8 of the Valuation Act, 1986), the Tribunal does not have to consider whether the constructions are rateable under the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852 as amended by Section 2 and 3 of the Valuation Act, 1986insofar as the Schedule to the said Act of 1852 refers to constructions affixed to lands. The final question upon which the opinion of the Court is sought is whether it is correct that where the Tribunal considered that constructions were non-rateable under Reference No. 1 as aforesaid, the Tribunal did not have to consider whether the tanks came within the provisions of Section 7(1)(a) of the Valuation Act, 1860 as inserted by Section 7 of the Valuation Act, 1986.

THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

4 There was an oral hearing before the Tribunal. Prior to it the respective parties made written submissions. Those submissions have been annexed to the Case Stated and form part of it. The Tribunal delivered a written determination and it also has been annexed to the Case Stated. So also are documents submitted in evidence by the Company's Works Director, Mr. Terence Gallagher.

5 The hereditaments the subject matter of the Case Stated were listed for revision on the 16th March, 1992. The revised list issued in November 1994. The Company appealed to the Commissioner of Valuation on the 8th November, 1994. The results of the first appeal were published in March 1996. The Company appealed the result of this appeal to the Tribunal on the 15th April, 1996. The valuation which was the subject of the appeal to the Tribunal was one of £1,150 in respect of hereditaments described as " miscellaneous". Included within that description were five tanks as follows:-

6 (a) One sea water clarifier tank. This was given a rateable valuation of £150 and is known as tank No. 2.

7 (b) One reactor tank. This was given a rateable valuation of £44 and is known as tank No. 3.

8 (c) Two thickener tanks which were given a rateable valuation of £310 and are known as tanks Nos. 4 and 5.

9 (d) One effluent tank. This was given a rateable valuation of £150 and is known as tank No. 6.

10 It is these tanks which are the subject of the Case Stated.

11 The tanks were described in detail in the précis of the evidence of Mr. Gallagher. The evidence of Mr. Gallagher was accepted in its entirety by the Tribunal.

12 The Tribunal summarised the nature, function and workings of each of the five tanks both in the body of the Case Stated and in its written judgment. It dealt with each of them as follows:-

"(a) The sea water clarifier - Tank No. 2.

13 This is a circular tank with 9 inch thick walls having an internal diameter of 56.4 meters and an external height of approximately 5.5 meters. It has a capacity of over 13,500 cubic meters. There is overhead cat-walk and screens with rotating arms.

14 Its function is threefold, namely, the neutralisation of acid, the reduction of colloidal and the removal of suspended sand, silt and clay which is within the sea water at the intake point.

15 All of this is achieved by a two stage process: reaction in the centre well with recycled magnesia precipitate which results in the removal of some dissolved sand and passage through a floating bed of precipitate which is maintained in the clarifier. The incoming sea water passes up through this bed which acts as a filter trapping sand and silt.

(b) The reactor tank (Tank No. 3)

16 This is a circular concrete tank with 9 inch thick walls about 5 foot in height. It has an internal diameter of 33 meters and a capacity of over 5,040 cubic meters, or 1.1 million gallons. It has an overhead cat-walk and screen with rotating arm.

17 Following the degassing, gassing and cleaning, the sea water flows by gravity to the centre well of this reactor. Lime slurry from the slaker is then added. In the reactor centre well there is a large turbine which rotates at plus/minus 4 revs. per minute. This rotation draws up the sea water which then mixes with the lime slurry. Immediately magnesia is precipitated. If uncontrolled, the reaction produces a very small, fine precipitate which would be extremely difficult to handle in the rest of the process. In order to prevent this, therefore, already produced precipitate is recycled from the primary thickeners. It is added to the pipeline taking the fresh sea water into the reactor and on reaching the centre well, acts as the seed onto which the new precipitate is deposited. For this reason, the recycled precipitate is known on the plant as "seed". Each time the seed in recycled the precipitate crystals get larger. With sufficient recycling a precipitate with good settling characteristics, suitable for use in the rest of the process, is produced.

18 From the reactor, the precipitate and the used sea water overflow to the primary thickeners.

(c) The Primary thickener tanks (Tanks Nos, 4 and 5)

19 ...