The Gazette 1993

GAZETTE

and the relevant case law. About 90% of appeals are finalised at this stage and at minimal expense to the appellant apart from an appeal fee of £25.00 to £75.00. Most appeals should be decided within six to nine months of the date of lodgement of the appeal. The decision of the Com- missioner may be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and there is a right of further appeal on a point of law to the High Court. Appeal to Valuation Tribunal As the Valuation Tribunal is of recent origin we will discuss it in more detail. If dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner one can appeal to the Tribunal. There is an appeal fee of £50, £100 or £150 depending on the amount of the valuation. Prior to July, 1988 such appeals went to the Circuit Court where they took their place in the queue with the usual range of civil and criminal cases. As this gave rise to long delays awaiting hearings and to inconsistency in judgments as between one Circuit and another it was decided to change to a specialised tribunal which was established under section 2 of the Valuation Act, 1988. Constitution and procedure The Tribunal consists of a chairman (Mr. Henry J. Abbott, SC), four deputy chairmen and three ordinary members, each appointed by the Minister for Finance on a part-time basis for a period of five years. The Act does not prescribe qualifications for membership but, of the eight members, six are lawyers and two are professional valuers. The Minister should perhaps appoint additional valuers to provide the necessary expertise in valuation theory and practice. The Tribunal operates in divisions of three members including the chairman (or a deputy chairman), sittings are held in private and cases may be presented in person or through a representative. A notice of appeal must indicate the grounds of appeal ; and the parties concerned must submit a summary of evidence to the Tribunal and exchange summaries in advance of the hearing. The Tribunal may at their

discretion determine whether evidence should be given on oath.

At present cases are heard within six months of lodging an appeal and adjournments are rarely given. buildings are rateable but machinery is not. However, with advancing technology, the functional difference between the two has become blurred and this has given rise to interpretation difficulties. For example, installations used for bulk storage may incorporate processing mechanisms or they may be so closely linked with other plant as to | form an integrated process. The I Valuation Act of 1986 (section 8) | attempted to resolve this particular j problem by providing that | constructions "designed or used ! primarily for storage or containment" j are rateable while exempting those which are "designed or used primarily to induce a process of change in the ; substance contained". In applying these provisions the Tribunal have decided that grain bins are rateable but milk tanks and whey tanks are not (Mitchelstown Creameries, 6 December 1988); that sugar silos are rateable (Siuicre j Eireann, 15 October 1990) but that lagoons forming part of an effluent treatment plant are exempt (Golden Vale Food Products, 12 June 1989). In the case of Caribmolasses Company, tanks used in the blending of molasses were deemed exempt by the Tribunal and by the High Court but the Supreme Court reversed the decision on the grounds that "no process of change is In other cases of interest it was held that the exemption in the 1986 Act for | lands developed for sport applied to a golf course but not to the clubhouse (Greystones Golf Club, 11 November 1988) and that a marina was exempt as it was not a "fixed mooring" (Kinsale Yacht Club, 31 May, 1991). The High Court affirmed the exemption but for a different reason i.e. that the marina comprised a development of land for sport. "The floating dock is secured by means of piles driven into the sea-bed which is induced. The molasses remain molasses" (judgment of 25 May, 1993).

They are obliged to issue a written judgment giving the reasons for their determination and the judgment is delivered at a sitting of the Tribunal. The Act provides that, in general, costs should be awarded to the successful party but normally the Tribunal do not award costs in cases which relate only to quantum (the valuation assessment). Í More detailed rules of procedure are set out in the Valuation Act 1988 (Appeal) Rules, 1988. In a separate set of guidelines the Tribunal suggest that proceedings should be as informal as i possible and state that "hearings will, in j general, proceed as enquiries rather than ! by an adversarial system". Parties are encouraged to agree facts in advance of the hearing and to submit lists of judgments which they intend to invoke. The Tribunal have a very satisfatory record to date. In their first year they delivered judgments on 90% of the appeals lodged and they have maintained that tempo. At present cases are heard within six months of lodging an appeal and adjournments are rarely given. In the main, cases are presented by the professional valuers in the VO on behalf of the respondent (the Commissioner) and by valuation consultants on behalf of appellants but, if the valuation quantum is very large and/or legal issues are in dispute, the parties have legal representation. Any party to an appeal who is dissatis- fied with a determination of the Tribunal "as being erroneous in point of law" may appeal to the High Court by way of case stated. Less than 2% of Tribunal decisions are appealed to the High Court. Selected Cases We may now refer to some judgments of the Tribunal in order to get a flavour of issues which come before them. Initially many cases related to the rateability of industrial installations. Under traditional valuation law Progress Appeal to High Court

318