Siúicre Éireann Teoranta v Commissioner of Valuation
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | McCarthy J. |
Judgment Date | 07 April 1992 |
Neutral Citation | 1992 WJSC-SC 1037 |
Court | Supreme Court |
Date | 07 April 1992 |
1992 WJSC-SC 1037
THE SUPREME COURT
Finlay C.J.
Hederman J.
McCarthy J.
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
ANNUAL REVISION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRL) (AMDT) ACT 1860 S7
COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1936
VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852 S12
BEAMISH & CRAWFORD LTD V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1980 ILRM 149
VALUATION (IRL) ACT 1852 S23
NIXON V COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1980 IR 340
ANNUAL REVISION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRL) (AMDT) ACT 1860 S11
Synopsis:
RATES
Hereditaments
Valuation - Assessment - Exception - Machinery - Sugar factory - Storage tanks - Heavy fuel oil - Mechanism for heating and stir ring oil - Tank not being machinery or a building - Power of Circuit Court to amend valuation lists - Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, ss. 12, 23 - Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1860, ss. 7, 11 - (414,438/88 - Supreme Court - 7/4/92) - [1992] ILRM 682
|Siucre Eireann Cpt. v. Commissioner of Valuation|
WORDS AND PHRASES
"Machinery"
Hereditament - Valuation - Assessment - Exception - Machinery - Sugar factory - Storage tanks - Heavy fuel oil - Mechanism for heating and stirring oil - Tank not being machinery or a building - Power of Circuit Court to amend valuation lists - (414.438/88 - Supreme Court - 7/4/92) - [1992] ILRM 682
|Siucre Eireann Cpt. v. Commissioner of Valuation|
Judgment of McCarthy J. delivered the 7th day of April, 1992. [Nem Diss]
This appeal, the progress of which has been marked with measured tread to which the delay in delivering judgment since the 28th November 1990 has made its modest contribution, concerns the rateability of certain structures on the lands owned by Siuicre at their sugar factory in Mallow, Co. Cork. The valuation in question was fixed on the 1st September 1974 and reduced on appeal to the Commissioner of Valuation on the 19th February 1975; Siuicre appealed to the Circuit Court. The valuation was increased in 1983, reduced by the Commissioner on the 18th July 1984 and a further appeal brought to the Circuit Court. The same valuation was fixed on the 1st November 1985, increased on appeal by the Commissioner on the 13th August 1986 and an appeal brought to the Circuit Court. The three appeals were heard at Cork on the 25th February 1988, when the learned Circuit Judge made certain rulings in regard to the rateability of particular items, as a result of which the relevant admitted rateability was fixed in the sums of £2,622 (1975) £2,985 (1984) and £3,185 (1986) respectively. These reductions resulted from the exclusion of certain items, the inclusion of a diesel oil tank under a different column of the valuation lists, and the measuring of the relevant valuation on two heavy fuel oil tanks and on the diesel tank. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 1860 as adapted by that of 1936, on the application of the Commissioner, the learned Circuit Judge, by case stated dated the 6th May 1988, sought the opinion of the High Court on three questions:-
a "(a) Was I correct in law in holding in respect of each appeal that the heavy fuel oil tanks are exempt from rating as coming within the exemption from rating as provided for by Section 7 of the said Act of 1860.
(b) Was I correct in law in holding in respect of each appeal that the valuation of the diesel oil tank should be deleted on the ground that the valuation in respect of same was included in the valuation fixed by the Respondent and included in the buildings column of the valuation list in circumstances where I found that the same is not a building within the meaning of Section 12 of the 1852 Act.
(c) Have I jurisdiction to transfer the diesel tank from the buildings column to the Miscellaneous column of the valuation list."
In the High Court, Hamilton P. answered the questions as follows:-
(a) Yes.
(b) Yes.
(c) Yes.
The result was to uphold the conclusions of the learned Circuit Judge that the fuel tanks and other structures to which I will revert were exempt from rating; that the diesel oil tank was not a building within the meaning of the 1852 Act, a conclusion with which the Commissioner did not take issue, but that it was a rateable element under the Miscellaneous column and should be rated at the same amount as it had been erroneously rated as a building.
Siuicre appealed, by notice of the 13th December 1988, against the third finding, and the Commissioner appealed against the conclusion in the first finding that the heavy fuel oil tanks were exempt from rating, and also against the award of costs.
The appeal, along with another valuation appeal by Pfizer Chemical Corporation were argued at length in this Court on the 28th and 29th November 1990.
The facts were established by reference to the case stated and the documents annexed thereto, including a precis of the evidence of Jim Lehane, Senior Technologist with Siuicre, Desmond Killen, a Director of Donal O'Buachalla and Company Limited, specialists in the field of valuation and Patrick J. Kyne, Civil Engineer, and District Valuer in the Valuation Office.
The heavy duty oil tanks are tanks of mild steel construction with steam heating/diluting elements with pumps which pump the oil to and from the tanks. Heavy crude oil is delivered by bulk road tankers to holding tanks where it is conditioned by heating and agitation. The heating is carried out by automatically controlled steam heating heaters which heat the oil as it is delivered to the tanks and a series of heating pipes within the tank keep the oil temperature at a set point.
The diesel oil tank is a holding tank for diesel oil to supply mobile equipment.
Section 7 of the 1860 Act provides:-
"In making the valuation of any mill or manufactory or building erected or used for any such purpose, the Commissioner of Valuation shall in each case value the water or other motive power thereof, but shall not take into account the value of any machinery therein, save only such as shall be erected and used for the production of motive power."
Subject to the proviso, the value of any machinery in any mill or manufactory, or building erected or used for any such purpose, shall not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bulmers Ltd (formerly Showerings (Ireland) Ltd) v Commissioner of Valuation
...149 PFIZER CHEMICAL CORP v COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION UNREP COSTELLO 9.5.1989 1989/8/2208 SIUICRE EIREANN CPT v COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1992 ILRM 682 IRISH REFINING PLC v COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION 1995 2 ILRM 223 DENIS COAKLEY & CO LTD v CMSR OF VALUATION 1996 2 ILRM 90 Valuation tribunal ......
-
Bulmers Ltd (formerly Showerings (Ireland) Ltd) v Commissioner of Valuation
...Ltd. v. Commissioner of Valuation(Unreported, High Court, Kelly J., 24th June, 1999). Siúicre Éireann v. Commissioner of Valuation [1992] I.L.R.M. 682. Local government - Rates - Valuation - Plant - Whether tanks used in containment and production of cider rateable plant - Whether tanks use......
-
Irish Refining Plc v Commissioner of Valuation (No. 2)
...United Molasses Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of ValuationUNK [1972] R.A. 282 considered; Siúcra Éireann CPT v. Commissioner of ValuationDLRM [1992] ILRM 682 applied. (3) Whether the predominant purpose was storage or not depended on whether the activity within the tank was itself a proximate pa......
-
VA96.6.008 – Showerings (Ireland) Ltd.
...the effect of altering their character”. That passage was endorsed by the Supreme Court in Siucre Eireann –v- Commissioner of Valuation 1992 ILRM p682 and to our knowledge has not been resiled from There are two further cases which, when dealing with the pre 1986 situation, should be mentio......