The Supreme Court has upheld the Valuation Tribunal’s decision that cider vats at Bulmers Limited’s Dowd’s Lane premises in Clonmel did not qualify for an exclusion from rates as plant used primarily to induce a process of change.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Finnegan on 30 July 2008, arose from Bulmers’ appeal against a High Court ruling on a case stated by the Commissioner of Valuation. The High Court had answered that the Tribunal’s factual findings were supported by the evidence and that it had not erred in law. The Supreme Court answered those questions in the same way.
The dispute concerned 22 wooden vats, 14 concrete tanks and 20 stainless steel tanks used in cider production. The concrete tanks were described as disused. The Tribunal had found that the vessels did not constitute machinery and did not fall within the statutory exclusion for certain plant. On this appeal, the issue argued was whether the vats were used primarily for storage or containment, which would make them rateable, or primarily to induce a process of change, which would bring them within the exclusion. The machinery question was not before the Supreme Court.
Bulmers argued that the vats formed part of the manufacturing process: apple juice fermented in them and additives were introduced at stages of production. It said the Tribunal had focused too much on the vessels’ design and failed to assess their use. The Commissioner maintained that the vats mainly contained their contents while a natural process took place.
Mr Justice Finnegan said the statutory test turned on the vats’ primary use. A natural process allowed to take place during containment did not itself bring the vessels within the exclusion; that required their primary use to be to induce a process of change. The evidence showed a cider production process lasting months, with additions and transfers between vessels, but the interventions occupied only a small part of that period. The vats were used interchangeably, and their capacity roughly equalled annual production, leaving little capacity for pure storage. The court nevertheless concluded that the primary use was containment while natural fermentation took place, with some capacity used for storage.
The Supreme Court held that the vats did not fall within the exclusion in Reference No. 1 of the statutory schedule. It therefore left in place the Tribunal’s rateability determination as upheld by the High Court. The court did not decide whether the vats constituted machinery.