AN BINSE LUACHÁLA
VALUATION TRIBUNAL
AN tACHT LUACHÁLA, 1988
VALUATION ACT, 1988

J P Brady & Son Limited APPELLANT
and
Commissioner of Valuation RESPONDENT

RE: Shop, Stores and Yard at Lot No:10D, Townland: Rahardrum,
Ward: Virginia, RD: Castlerahan, Co. Cavan
Quantum - Comparisons - Case stated returned from High Court

B E F O R E
Henry Abbott S.C. Chairman
Brian O'Farrell Valuer
Paddy Farry Solicitor

JUDGMENT OF THE VALUATION TRIBUNAL
ISSUED ON THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1995

By Notice of Appeal dated the 11th day of February 1993 the appellant appealed against the determination of the Commissioner of Valuation in fixing a rateable valuation of £110 on the above described hereditament.

The grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal are that:-
"The valuation is excessive, inequitable and bad in law."

The Property:
The property description and the basis of the valuation and comparable valuations were set out in the précis of evidence delivered by the parties hereto, as to that of the respondent received by the Tribunal on the 12th August 1993 and as to that of appellant received on the 13th August 1993 and were summarised in the Tribunal judgment in this appeal dated 30th day of September 1993.

The case was heard by the Tribunal on the 23rd August 1993 and judgment was given on the 30th September 1993 affirming the valuation of £110 on the above described hereditament. The appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the judgment of the Tribunal and ultimately requested the tribunal to state a case to the High Court by way of appeal on 21st day of October 1993 and consequently the Tribunal stated a case by way of appeal to the High Court dated the 22nd day of July 1994. In the case stated the opinion of the High Court was requested as to whether:-

(1) The Valuation Tribunal in determining the valuation of the subject premises properly applied the provisions of Section 5 of the Valuation Act 1986?

(2) The comparisons adduced were such that the Valuation Tribunal was justified in determining the valuation of the subject to be £110 having regard to such
comparisons?

(3) The Valuation Tribunal was entitled to apply the criteria applied by it in reaching its determination of the subject premises?

The Court answered questions 1 and 3 in the negative and the Court submitted question 2 to the Valuation Tribunal for reconsideration.

Oral Hearing:
The reconsideration of question 2 in the case stated took place at an oral hearing in Dublin on the 24th day of April 1995. The judgment of the High Court of Mr. Justice Geoghegan in the High Court stated as follows:-

"The comparisons relied upon comply with subsection 2 of Section 5, but what is crucial is the wording of subsection 1 of that Section which reads as follows ....
Notwithstanding Section 11 of the Act of 1852, in making or revising a valuation of a tenement or rateable hereditament, the amount of the valuation which, apart
from this section, would be made may be reduced by such amount as is necessary to ensure, insofar as is reasonably practicable, that the amount of the valuation
bears the same relationship to the valuations of other tenements and rateable hereditaments as the net annual value of the tenement or rateable hereditament
bears to the net annual values of the other tenements and rateable hereditaments.

The Oireachtas in referring to the valuations of other tenements is clearly referring to the listed valuations as they stand. However sensible the approach may have been in the ordinary way, I am satisfied that the Tribunal is not entitled under the legislation to treat the comparisons as though they had a higher valuation than they had in fact had."

Mr. McMillan repeated his arguments and Mr. Brady additionally gave evidence as to the poorer location than and inferior status of the subject to many of the comparisons.

Findings:
The Tribunal accepts totally the judgment of the High Court regarding the manner in which the valuation is to be carried out in this case. In consequence the Tribunal takes into consideration the comparisons, the actual valuations of the comparisons offered and as these are (as held in the previous judgment of the Valuation Tribunal) significantly superior premises in terms of trading location, the valuation of the subject must be consequently significantly reduced.

Having regard to the foregoing and all the comparisons offered and the evidence originally given by all the parties, in addition to the additional evidence given at the further hearing, the Tribunal determines the valuation of the subject premises at £75.