Appeal No. VA90/2/012
AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
Sweater Shop Kilkenny APPELLANT
RE: Shop at Lot No. 59b High Street, Co. Kilkenny
B E F O R E
JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
By notice of appeal dated the 9th day of July, 1990, the appellants appealed
against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a
rateable valuation of £97.00 on the above described hereditament.
Mr Edward Hickey a valuer with 19 years experience in the Valuation Office in a written submission received on the 19th September, 1990 on behalf of the respondent said that the property is located close to all the major shops, supermarkets and major financial institutions and is held on a lease for 35 years from March 1989 at a rent of £16,120 per annum. He said that negotiations commenced in late 1988 to lease this shop. As the rent was agreed at arms length, this witness would maintain that the rent passing is the N.A.V. for 1 November, 1988 which is the relevant date for this appeal. He made reference to Section 11 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852 and to Section 5 of the Valuation Act, 1986. He said that the Tribunal, was therefore, requested to decide on two important elements in this case:
(1) What is the correct net annual value of these premises as per Section
11 of the 1852 Act, amended by Section 5(1) and (2) of the 1986 Act.
Mr Hickey submitted that the N.A.V. is £16,120 and the appropriate fraction is .63% and thus, the rateable valuation is £102.
At the oral hearing which took place in Kilkenny on the 3rd October,
1990, the appellant was represented by Mr Ray Ward of Lisneys. Mr Edward
Hickey, Valuer with the Valuation Office appeared on behalf of the respondent.
He said that the Commissioner's attempt to apply the .63% fraction to the N.A.V. of all properties is contrary to the 1986 Valuation Act and to the judgment of Barron J. in the Irish Management Institute v. Commissioner of Valuation (Appeal No. 88/101).
He said that the subject property was paying approx. £1,300 more in rates than their competitors on the same street.
He referred in detail to the five comparisons offered and said that the subject premises was a lock up shop, smaller than the comparisons. It's clients had no objection to paying their equitable share of rates but a valuation of £92 was entirely inappropriate.
Mr Hickey in evidence did not accept what amounted to a 20% increase in rents over the four month period between November 1988 and March 1989. He said that the appropriate N.A.V. should be £16,120 based on the actual passing rent in March.
Mr Hickey, in evidence, referred to his written submission and said that the .63% ratio was based on a very detailed survey carried out in Dublin's Grafton St. and Henry St.
He stated that the .63% fraction had been accepted by many valuers in Waterford, Cork and now Kilkenny. He argued that a "global" figure must be sought as a fraction to apply to all types of properties e.g. retail, office and industrial. It emerged, he said, as a result of the application of the fraction that the valuations of retail and office properties increased while that of industrial properties decreased.
He produced the results of a summary of a group study report for the
Kilkenny/Waterford region indicating the following:-
Mr Ward admitted that his firm had agreed a fraction of .63% in respect of some industrial premises in the Kilkenny area but only because the valuations produced were in line with other industrial premises.
(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing, for the purpose of ensuring
such a relationship regard shall be had, in so far as is reasonably practicable,
to the valuations of
In the judgment of Barron J. above referred to, he said that in reference
to subsection 2 of Section 5 of Valuation Act, 1986 that it "is not
a provision on its own. What is being sought is an overall proportion
between hypothetical rents and valuations. This must be borne in mind
when applying its provisions. What must be considered are valuations which:
Where there is evidence under each of these headings sufficient to obtain the relevant proportions then the valuations can be determined by reference to the subsection alone. Where the evidence is insufficient, then the overall proportions predicated by subsection (1) must be adopted. In each case, the sufficiency of the evidence is a matter for the Tribunal."
The respondent offered no evidence of hereditaments which are (a) comparable or (b) relate to tenements or hereditaments of similar function or (c) have been made or revised within a recent period.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary the comparative evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant must be accepted.
While the Tribunal is conscious of the desirability of achieving a uniformity in the ratio to be applied between N.A.V. and R.V. it does not accept the respondent's contention that this can be achieved by taking an average of properties which are not only widely diverse but each of whose range of ratios is extremely wide.
The Tribunal accepts the appellant's comparisons as valid and meeting the criteria of Barron J. quoted above.
Having regard to the foregoing the Tribunal determines that the rateable valuation of the premises should be £48.