The High Court has ruled that the licensed outdoor seating area of a Dublin café is relevant property for rating purposes and must be included in its valuation. It held that the Valuation Tribunal was wrong in law to find that the right to street furniture should be left out.
The judgment concerns a case stated by the Valuation Tribunal under the Valuation Act 2001, after the Commissioner of Valuation said the Tribunal’s 2016 determination was erroneous in law. The question put to the High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct to find that the “right to street furniture” was exempt from rating and should not be included in the valuation.
Seven Wonders Limited’s property is a ground-floor café on Excise Walk in Dublin’s International Financial Services Centre. The Commissioner had valued it at €20,700, including the outdoor tables and chairs. On the company’s appeal, the Tribunal reduced the net annual value to €16,000 and found that the street furniture right should not be included. Its reasons included inconsistencies in how nearby properties were treated.
Justice Meenan found that the café held a licence over the outdoor seating area and paid Dublin City Council a fee. The licence allowed the company to exclude others and reserve the area for its customers. The judge concluded that the area therefore met the Act’s definition of relevant property.
He also found the occupation met the requirements for rateable occupation: it was actual, exclusive for the café’s purposes, of value or benefit to the company, and not shown to be transient. The judgment noted evidence from the company’s valuer, Eamon S. Halpin, who accepted under cross-examination that street furniture enhanced the property and said this was reflected in the rent.
The Tribunal had relied in part on nearby comparisons where no street furniture addition had been made. The judge said that even if anomalies existed in the valuation list, the Tribunal was bound to apply the 2001 Act.
In answering the legal question, the High Court adopted the Commissioner’s proposed answer: the Tribunal was erroneous in point of law, and the street furniture right and outdoor café area were relevant property required to be valued under the Act. The court did not make further orders in this judgment. It invited written submissions within 14 days on any further orders required, including costs.