VA12.1.008 – World Missions Ireland

• Appeal Number: VA12.1.008
• Year: 2012
• Date: 17 July 2012
• Court: Valuation Tribunal
• Respondent: Commissioner of Valuation
• Appellant: World Missions Ireland

Appeal No. VA12/1/008

AN BINSE LUACHÁLA

VALUATION TRIBUNAL

AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 2001

VALUATION ACT, 2001

World Missions Ireland APPELLANT

and

Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT

RE: Lot No. 809917, Office(s) at 62-64, Rathmines Road Lower, Rathmines West B,

Rathmines West, County Borough of Dublin.

B E F O R E

Niall O'Hanlon - BL

Deputy Chairperson

James Browne - BL

Member

Michael Connellan Jr - Solicitor

Member

JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL

ISSUED ON THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2012

By Notice of Appeal received on the 19th day of January, 2012 the appellant appealed

against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation

of €218 on the above described relevant property.

The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are:

"The valuation is excessive having regard to the nature, layout and size of property."

"The property should be exempt from the valuation list having regard to the origin, status

and activities of the occupier and the definition of relevant property not rateable as set

out in Schedule 4 of the Valuation Act 2001."

2

2

Introduction

By Notice of Appeal received by the Tribunal on the 19th of January, 2012, the

Appellants appealed against the determination of the Respondent in respect of the

property the subject matter of the present appeal.

Oral hearings in respect of this appeal took place in the offices of the Valuation Tribunal

at Holbrook House, Holles Street, Dublin 2, on the 24th of April, the 10th of May, the 7th

of June, the 21st of June and the 27th of June, 2012.

Mr. Maurice Gaffney S.C. and Mr. Fionan Ó Muircheataigh B.L., instructed by A.

McCann & Co. Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

Ms. Rosemary Healy-Rae B.L. appeared on the 24th of April, Ms. Grainne O’Neill B.L.

appeared on the 10th of May, and Ms. Peggy O’Rourke B.L. appeared on the hearing

dates between the 7th and the 27th of June, 2012, each of the aforementioned Counsel

being instructed by the Chief State Solicitor, on behalf of the Respondent.

Preliminary Matter

Introduction

At the hearing of the within matter the Respondent objected to the Appellants putting

certain documents before the Tribunal. The Respondent alleges that these documents

were not before the Commissioner at the revision or appeal stage and therefore cannot

now be introduced for the first time at final appeal stage. The Respondent submits that

the documents constitute new grounds of appeal and/or new evidence and therefore

should not be considered by the Tribunal in the absence of exceptional circumstances of

which it submits there are none. The documents objected to are the Statute of the

Pontifical Mission Societies 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Statute of 1980) plus

certain provisions of the Code of Canon Law which the Appellants seek to rely on for the

purposes of establishing the constitution of the Appellants. During the hearing counsel on

behalf of the Appellants stated that they were no longer relying on the Statute of 1980

3

3

and therefore the only issue remaining is the admittance before this Tribunal of the Code

of Canon Law.

Respondent’s Submissions

The Respondent submits that there was no reference made to the Code of Canon Law by

the Appellants either at revision stage or at first appeal stage. The Respondent accepted

that the Appellants did in its grounds of appeal at first appeal stage indicate that the

origin, activities, status and financial accounts of the Pontifical Mission Societies were

set out in brochures, leaflets and annual reports already supplied to the Valuation Office.

However, the Respondent submits that the documentation received by the Respondent

from the Appellant did not include the Code of Canon Law.

The Respondent submitted that the Revision Officer had sought clarification by way of

an email dated the 9th day of May 2011 asking the Appellants to specify why the property

should be exempt under schedule 4 of the Valuation Act 2001. The Respondent further

submitted that the Revision Officer in the ‘consideration of appeal form’ dated the 23rd of

December 2011, stated that no satisfactory response was ever received to this query.

In its supplemental legal submissions, the Respondent submitted that the Appellants are

effectively trying to introduce new grounds of appeal which were not raised at revision or

first appeal stage by seeking to rely on certain provisions of Canon Law to show that the

Appellants come within the definition of a ‘charitable organisation’ contained in Section

3 of the 2001 Act. To demonstrate this, the Respondent made an analogy with that of a

company seeking to furnish an amended memorandum of association and/or articles of

association to the Tribunal which was not furnished to the Commissioner at first appeal

stage.

At paragraph 2 of the Respondent’s second supplemental submissions, the Respondent

stated that that the Appellants are ‘...seeking to adduce evidence which was not before the

Respondent at the revision or appeal stage. As previously addressed to the Tribunal, the

Appellant is effectively attempting to introduce new grounds of appeal which were not