VA12.1.008 – World Missions Ireland

Appeal NumberVA12.1.008
Date17 July 2012
CourtValuation Tribunal
RespondentCommissioner of Valuation
AppellantWorld Missions Ireland
Appeal No. VA12/1/008
World Missions Ireland APPELLANT
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.
Niall O'Hanlon - BL
Deputy Chairperson
James Browne - BL
Michael Connellan Jr - Solicitor
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."
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
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
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
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

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT