Judgment: 2011-12-21 · Court archive

High Court rules National Aquatic Centre is not rateable

The court answered both questions in a case stated in the affirmative, finding the centre was occupied by the State for the purposes of the Valuation Act 2001.

High Court · [2011] IEHC 506

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Fingal County Council (Appellant)
  • Commissioner of Valuation (Respondent)
  • NSCDA (Operations) Limited
  • Michael Peart (Judge)
  • Patrick Butler SC
What

The court answered both questions in a case stated in the affirmative, finding the centre was occupied by the State for the purposes of the Valuation Act 2001.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • National Aquatic Centre
  • Fingal
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 14 March 2011

    Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 21 December 2011 after Fingal County Council brought a case stated challenging a decision by the Commissioner of Valuation. The Commissioner had decided on 14 March 2011 that the centre was occupied by the State and was therefore not rateable. The council asked the court whether the Valuation Tribunal was correct in treating NSCDA (Operations) Limited, the centre’s occupier, as the State or an office of State, and in finding it was not liable for rates.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court ruled that the National Aquatic Centre was not rateable because it was occupied by the State within the meaning of section 15(3) of the Valuation Act 2001.

The High Court ruled that the National Aquatic Centre was not rateable because it was occupied by the State within the meaning of section 15(3) of the Valuation Act 2001.

Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 21 December 2011 after Fingal County Council brought a case stated challenging a decision by the Commissioner of Valuation. The Commissioner had decided on 14 March 2011 that the centre was occupied by the State and was therefore not rateable. The council asked the court whether the Valuation Tribunal was correct in treating NSCDA (Operations) Limited, the centre’s occupier, as the State or an office of State, and in finding it was not liable for rates.

The court considered the National Sports Campus Development Authority Act 2006 and the Minister’s influence over the Authority’s funding, appointments, plans, staffing, accounts and activities. The Authority’s statutory functions include developing and operating a sports campus, including the National Aquatic Centre, and promoting its use by athletes and the public. NSCDA (Operations) Limited operates the centre under a lease from the Authority and is its wholly owned subsidiary.

For Fingal County Council, Patrick Butler SC argued that the occupier was a limited liability company operating in commercial competition with private fitness centres. He also argued that the centre’s role in promoting swimming did not have the same significance for government policy as functions such as health or the administration of justice.

The Commissioner and the notice party supported the finding that the centre was occupied by the State. Their submissions pointed to ministerial control and to sport’s national role under the 2006 Act.

Justice Peart concluded that the degree of government and ministerial control, together with the centre’s place in government policy, meant the State was the occupier for section 15(3). He answered both questions in the case stated in the affirmative. The judgment resolved the questions referred to the High Court; it did not set out a separate order for costs or other relief.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review