Stanberry Investments Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice O'Regan |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IEHC 620 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2017 No. 617 S.S.] |
| Date | 08 November 2018 |
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 39 OF THE VALUATION ACT, 2001 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY NUMBER 78065, CAR PARK AT 47-53 CLARENDON STREET, COUNTY BOROUGH OF DUBLIN (APPEAL NUMBER VA14/5/387)
[2018] IEHC 620
[2017 No. 617 S.S.]
THE HIGH COURT
Case stated – Point of law – Revaluation – Appellant seeking to appeal to the High Court by way of case stated – Whether the Valuation Tribunal failed to comply with s. 48 (1) of the Valuation Act 2001 or arrived at the determination which was vitiated by significant errors of fact and thereby erred in law in doing so
Facts: This was an appeal by way of case stated of the 2nd June 2017 pursuant to s. 39 of the Valuation Act, 2001 against the judgment of the Valuation Tribunal bearing date 1st April 2016. The case was stated by the Valuation Tribunal at the request of the appellant, Stanberry Investments Ltd. The appeal to the High Court was limited to a point of law. The matter under consideration by the Tribunal was an effective revaluation of the car park at 47-53 Clarendon Street, County Borough of Dublin, as part of the revaluation of Dublin City Council rateable valuation area ascertained as of the 7th April 2011. The purpose of the revaluation was to determine the Net Annual Value (NAV) of the relevant property as defined in s. 48 (3) of the 2001 Act. The amended case stated of the 5th October 2018 identified five questions arising out of the impugned decision namely: 1) If the appellant is correct that the determination was based on an error of fact, did the Tribunal fail to comply with s. 48 (1) of the 2001 Act or arrive at the determination which was vitiated by significant errors of fact and thereby erred in law in doing so? 2) Did the Tribunal err at law in identifying the Setanta car park and Trinity Street car park as establishing the emerging tone of the list in circumstances where the valuation in respect of each of such car parks was under appeal? 3) Did the Tribunal err in law in accepting comparisons close to the subject premises particularly Setanta and Trinity, which were part of the schematic of the respondent, the Commissioner of Valuation, notwithstanding the Tribunal found that such schematic was of limited benefit? 4) Did the Tribunal err in law in failing to accord any or any due regard to the market and emerging tone of the list reflected by the un-appealed or agreed valuations of the North City car parks? 5) Did the Tribunal err at law in using the comparison method as opposed to any other method in circumstances where the Setanta and Trinity car parks being situate on the south side were under appeal?
Held by O'Regan J that: 1) the determination of the Tribunal was based on an error of fact relevant to the Arnott’s street car park and thereby erred in law in doing so; 2) the Tribunal erred in law in having regard to or placing weight on the emerging tone of the list attributable to Setanta and Trinity Street car parks which were then under appeal; 3) notwithstanding the Tribunal’s comments relevant to the Commissioner’s schematic it was within jurisdiction of the Tribunal to accept comparisons close to the subject premises notwithstanding that Setanta and Trinity Street car parks were part of the Commissioner’s schematic; 4) the appellant had failed to establish that the Tribunal erred in law in failing to accord any or any due weight to the market and emerging tone of the list reflected by un-appealed or agreed revaluations of the north city car parks; 5) it was within the privilege and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to use the comparison method applied by it to its decision, no cogent argument to warrant a contrary outcome having been advanced.
Judgment approved.
This is an appeal by way of case stated of the 2nd June 2007 pursuant to s. 39 of the Valuation Act, 2001 against the judgment of the Valuation Tribunal bearing date 1st April 2016. The case is stated by the Valuation Tribunal at the request of the within appellant. It refers to the car park mentioned in the title hereof colloquially known as the Brown Thomas car park. The appeal to this court, under s. 39 aforesaid, is limited to a point of law. Under section 39 (5) the High Court may reverse, affirm, amend or remit the matter to the Tribunal.
The matter under consideration by the Tribunal was an effective revaluation of the subject premises as part of the revaluation of Dublin City Council rateable valuation area ascertained as of the 7th April 2011. The purpose of the revaluation was to determine the Net Annual Value (NAV) of the relevant property as defined in s. 48 (3) of the 2001 Act.
By way of background to the impugned decision an initial valuation is ascertained by a valuation manager which may then be agreed or appealed to the Commissioner of Valuation. This is what occurred in the instant matter and on the 12th August 2014 the Commissioner of Valuation agreed with the valuation manager's valuation of €1,140,000. As permitted by the legislation the appellant herein issued a notice of appeal of the 3rd September 2014 as against the Commissioner of Valuation decision, to the Valuation Tribunal. This appeal was by way of oral hearing over a two-day period commencing on the 15th December 2015 where expert evidence on behalf of both the appellant and the Commissioner of Valuation was given. Arising from this hearing the decision of the 1st April 2016 issued. In its decision, the Tribunal reduced the applicable rate by €250 per car parking space to €2,750 per space which amounted to a valuation of €1,045,000.
The amended case stated of the 5th October 2018 identified five questions arising out of the impugned decision namely: -
1. If the appellant is correct that the determination was based on an error of fact, did the Tribunal fail to comply with s. 48 (1) of the 2001 Act or arrive at the determination which was vitiated by significant errors of fact and thereby erred in law in doing so?
2. Did the Tribunal err at law in identifying the Setanta car park and Trinity Street car park as establishing the emerging tone of the list in circumstances where the valuation in respect of each of such car parks was under appeal?
3. Did the Tribunal err in law in accepting comparisons close to the subject premises particularly Setanta and Trinity, which were part of the schematic of the respondent notwithstanding the Tribunal found that such schematic was of limited benefit?
4. Did the Tribunal err in law in failing to accord any or any due regard to the market and emerging tone of the list reflected by the un-appealed or agreed valuations of the North City car parks?
5. Did the Tribunal err at law in using the comparison method as opposed to any other method in circumstances where the Setanta and Trinity car parks being situate on the south side were under appeal?
The impugned judgment herein comprises a thirteen page document. The Tribunal itself consisted of a three party Tribunal. It is common case that the Tribunal might be considered within the concept of an expert Tribunal (See Henry Denny & Sons (Ireland) Ltd. v. Minister for Agriculture [1998] 1 IR 34). At Para. 2 of the judgment the Tribunal determined the NAV of the subject premises as being €1,045,000 thereafter set out the reasons for achieving this reduced figure. Such reasoning consisted of setting out details of the appellant's case and the evidence at cross examination of the appellant's witness. The respondent's evidence, including comparisons, together with the cross examination of the respondent was then set out. At p. 11 reference is made to further information which came to hand after the hearing. Thereafter the decision incorporates a summary of the arguments made by the respective parties including the appellant's submission that the appellant's best comparison was Arnott's and Drury Street in respect of rental. At p. 12 of the judgment there is a section headed ‘Conclusion’ and on p. 13 of the judgment the section is headed ‘Findings’.
In the conclusion section the Tribunal found the instant car park to be a busy city centre car park with pedestrian access to Brown Thomas and easy access to Grafton Street and adjoining streets. It is noted that no other car park referred to has the dual restriction applicable to the instant property namely no contract parking is permitted and increased charges must be made in respect of long term parking, by virtue of the planning permission. The Tribunal noted the appellant's complaint in respect of disruptive work however found the respondent's comments that same were reflected and included in the various comparisons as persuasive.
The Tribunal noted the appellant's difficulty with the differentiation between north side and south side by the Commissioner arriving at a schematic and thereafter indicated that the respondent's argument that this is the third best car park in the city with the two other car parks also being on the south side as being relevant.
The Tribunal found little weight could be placed on Drury Street in the circumstances and was persuaded by the respondent's arguments relative to opening hours between north and south inner city (longer opening hours were available to the instant car park than for example Arnott's car park). The respondent indicated that there were congestion issues by the operating of Stephen's Green and the RCSI car parks being run in tandem. The Tribunal was satisfied that weight could be placed on the rent agreed between the parties in respect of the Setanta car park (although it is clear from the recorded evidence of the appellant that the appellant was arguing that no such weight should be placed on this rental). In the final paragraph under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lloyd's Insurance Company SA v Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman
...is a mixed question of law and fact. It is submitted, however, in reliance on Stanberry Investments Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation [2018] IEHC 620 (“ Stanberry”) that construction becomes a question of law as soon as the true meaning of the words in which an instrument has been expressed a......
-
Clarke v Halpin
...decision was been quoted with approval in the recent decision of O'Regan J. in Stanberry Investments Limited v Commissioner of Valuation [2018] IEHC 620. 18 It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the street on which the property is located is entirely residential, and comes within......