R & H Hall Plc v Commissioner of Valuation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 16 December 1994
• Neutral Citation: 1994 WJSC-HC 3971
• Docket Number: NO 756 SS/1990
• Court: High Court
• Date: 16 December 1994

R & H HALL PLC v. COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION ACTS, 1852 TO 1988

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPEALS

APPEAL NO: 88/81

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION OF THE LANDS AND PREMISES

COMPRISED IN LOT 19C DOCK ROAD, FERRYBANK IN THE ELECTORAL

DIVISION OF FERRYBANK AND IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF WATERFORD

AND DESCRIBED IN THE VALUATION LIST AS "PART JETTY"

APPEAL NO: 88/82

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION OF THE LANDS AND PREMISES

COMPRISED IN LOT 191 DOCK ROAD, FERRYBANK IN THE ELECTORAL

DIVISION OF FERRYBANK AND IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF WATERFORD

AND DESCRIBED IN THE VALUATION LIST AS "PART JETTY"

APPEAL NO: 88/85

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION OF THE LANDS AND PREMISES

COMPRISED IN LOT 19J DOCK ROAD, FERRYBANK IN THE ELECTORAL

DIVISION OF FERRYBANK AND IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF WATERFORD

AND DESCRIBED IN THE VALUATION LIST AS "GRAINSTORES, PART

JETTY"

APPEAL NO. 88/84

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION OF THE LANDS AND PREMISES

COMPRISED IN LOT 19K DOCK ROAD, FERRYBANK IN THE ELECTORAL

DIVISION OF FERRYBANK AND IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF WATERFORD

AND DESCRIBED IN THE VALUATION LIST AS "GRAINSTORES"

BETWEEN

R. & H. HALL PLC

APPELLANT

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION

RESPONDENT

1994 WJSC-HC 3971

NO 756 SS/1990

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

RATES

Hereditaments

Valuation - Revision - Commissioner - Jurisdiction - Lots - Identification - Lots held under different titles - (Barron J. - 16/12/94)

|R. & H. Hall Plc. v. Commissioner of Valuation|

Citations:

SWITZER V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1902 IR 275

COAL DISTRIBUTERS V COMMISSIONER FOR VALUATION 1990 ILRM 172

VALUATION ACT 1854 S4

VALUATION ACT 1852 S11

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrondelivered the16th day of DECEMBER, 1994.

2 This is a Case Stated dated 11th October, 1990 in relation to the inclusion in the Valuation Lists and the valuation of four lots at Dock Road, Ferrybank, Waterford. The lots form part of a complex owned by the Appellant comprising grainstores, silos and a jetty. Part of this complex is built over the tideway beyond high water line and it is this portion which is the subject of the Case Stated.

3 To understand the issue involved, it is necessary to refer to the rating history of the entire complex. The basic problem springs from inadequate lot description and inadequate boundary definition on the relevant valuation maps.

4 Appendix 27 of the documents before me annexes the several valuation maps. These show that building beyond high water line commenced between 1893 and 1911. Little change appears in the map used until 1926, but further building is apparent in the map used until 1959. The major portions of the complex are designated as Lots 19b and 19c. It is not clear whether the portion of the complex beyond high water line is included, but, if it is not, it is not given a Lot No. The map used from 1970 to 1976 shows a change of the two major lot numbers to 19bc and the portion beyond high water line is included. However, portion of the latter is excluded but without a lot number and the riverside boundary is not delineated. The map remained essentially the same until 1987. Thereafter the tenements beyond the high water line are given the lot numbers in the title to the Case Stated.

5 Appendix 28 sets out the revision history of the complex in relation to five lots which it describes as well as indicating the Lot No. relating to it. From this it can be seen that the four tenements in question are described as "Grain, Silo, and Part Jetty," "Part Jetty", "Part Jetty",and "Storage Bins (part tideway River Suir)". Until 1987 they were also referred to as part of Lot 19bc. Taking the descriptions of the tenements set out on the revision list, they can be seen to be included there as the second, third, fifth and fourth items respectively.

6 Notwithstanding these matters, it has been submitted by Counsel for the Appellant that the relevant portion of the complex was never included in Lot 19bc and that accordingly they were not properly listed in the revision list. He submits that such tenements should be described as part of the tideway of the River Suir.

7 This submission is made on the authority of certain Orders of Judge Sheridan on the hearing of appeals in relation to these tenements. The material term of his Orders is that such tenements were "constructed on piles driven into the tideway of the...