Vedanta Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Garrett Simons
• Judgment Date: 26 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 511
• Docket Number: 2024 1613 SS

In the Matter of Section 39 of the Valuation Act 2001

Between:

Vedanta Resources Ltd

Appellant

and

Commissioner of Valuation

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 511

2024 1613 SS

THE HIGH COURT

Case stated – Valuation – Remittal – Respondent requesting a case stated – Whether the determination under review disclosed the findings and rationale of the Valuation Tribunal on the principal issues

Facts: The Valuation Tribunal had been required to value a “tailings management facility" comprising a base and containment walls within which waste material from mining activities were contained. From a valuation perspective, the striking feature of the structure was that it could no longer be used to facilitate ongoing mining activities because it was full to capacity and had been capped. The matter came before the High Court by way of a consultative case stated from the Valuation Tribunal. The impugned determination of the Valuation Tribunal was dated 19 January 2024. The ratepayer, Vedanta Resources Ltd, had been the appellant before the Valuation Tribunal with the Commissioner of Valuation being the respondent. The case stated had been requested by the Commissioner. It was apparent from the recital of evidence, in the impugned determination, that there was a significant dispute between the parties as to the duration of the useful life of the tailings management facility. Having regard to that dispute, the choice of which method of valuation to apply assumed an especial significance.

Held by Simons J that it was crucial to the proper valuation of the structure to determine whether its value should be assessed by reference to its current use as an aftercare facility, or whether, alternatively, its value should be assessed by reference to a longer time span to include its previous use to receive waste material. He found that, on the latter analysis, it might be appropriate to have regard to the historical value of the tailings management facility in allowing the occupier to generate revenue from carrying out mining activities in accordance with the relevant development consents. He held that the proper valuation required careful consideration of the logically anterior question of which of the various approaches to valuation should be adopted; in particular, it required consideration of whether it would be appropriate to employ a method of valuation relying on the notional cost of constructing or providing the property, i.e. the so-called “contractor’s method of valuation”. He found that the determination of the Valuation Tribunal did not record its finding on that crucial issue of the appropriate method of valuation; whereas the determination discussed, at various points, the contractor’s method of valuation, comparable valuations, and the rent which a hypothetical tenant would be willing to pay, it was not possible to tell which method the Valuation Tribunal ultimately settled upon, still less to understand its rationale for doing so.

Simons J held that the determination must be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted panel of the Valuation Tribunal.

Appeal remitted.

Appearances

Patrick Leonard SC and Michael Vallely for the Commissioner of Valuation instructed by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor

Owen Hickey SC and Proinsias Ó Maolchalain for the Ratepayer instructed by James J. Kelly & Sons

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Garrett Simons delivered on 26 September 2025

INTRODUCTION

1 This matter comes before the High Court by way of a consultative case stated from the Valuation Tribunal. The Valuation Tribunal had been required to value a “ tailings management facility”. This structure comprises a base and containment walls within which waste material from mining activities are contained. From a valuation perspective, the striking feature of the structure is that it can no longer be used to facilitate ongoing mining activities. This is because the structure is now full to capacity and has been capped.

2 It is crucial to the proper valuation of the structure to determine whether its value should be assessed by reference to its current use as an aftercare facility, or whether, alternatively, its value should be assessed by reference to a longer time span to include its previous use to receive waste material. On this latter analysis, it might be appropriate to have regard to the historical value of the tailings management facility in allowing the occupier to generate revenue from carrying out mining activities in accordance with the relevant development consents.

3 The proper valuation required careful consideration of the logically anterior question of which of the various approaches to valuation should be adopted. In particular, it required consideration of whether it would be appropriate to employ a method of valuation relying on the notional cost of constructing or providing the property, i.e. the so-called “ contractor's method of valuation”.

4 Regrettably, the determination of the Valuation Tribunal does not record its finding on this crucial issue of the appropriate method of valuation. Whereas the determination discusses, at various points, the contractor's method of valuation, comparable valuations, and the rent which a hypothetical tenant would be willing to pay, it is not possible to tell which method the Valuation Tribunal ultimately settled upon, still less to understand its rationale for doing so. Accordingly, the determination must be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted panel of the Valuation Tribunal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

5 The impugned determination of the Valuation Tribunal is dated 19 January 2024. The ratepayer, Vedanta Resources Ltd, had been the appellant before the Valuation Tribunal with the Commissioner of Valuation being the respondent. The case stated has been requested by the Commissioner.

6 The impugned determination of the Valuation Tribunal relates to lands located at Killoran, Moyne, Thurles, Co. Tipperary. The Valuation Tribunal described the overall rateable property as “ the Lisheen Mine”.

7 The appeal to the Valuation Tribunal had centred on one specific structure described as a “ tailings management facility”. The value of the other structures at the Lisheen Mine had largely been agreed between the parties.

8 The impugned determination records that mining operations at the Lisheen Mine had commenced in the year 1999 and ceased at the end of the year 2015. It also records the following evidence. The mining operations had involved the extraction of lead/zinc ore which resulted in the production of waste material described as “ mine tailings”. This waste material is potentially hazardous and its disposal is regulated by an aftercare or rehabilitation plan agreed pursuant to development consent conditions. In order to meet its obligation to dispose of the mine tailings in compliance with the development consents, the mine operator had been required to construct a structure described as a “ tailings management facility” or “ TMF” for short. The structure consists of a base and containment walls, both of which are lined with composite lining to prevent contaminated liquid (“ leachate”) from escaping to the environment.

9 The tailings management facility has now been filled to capacity. The rehabilitation of the tailings management facility required the mine operator to ensure that the facility is “ capped”. The mine operator is obliged, under the development consents, to continue...