The High Court ruled that the Valuation Tribunal should have sent Cork County Council a précis of evidence submitted in an appeal concerning the valuation of fibre optic cable along railway lines in County Cork. The court had not yet decided what orders to make when judgment was delivered on 31 July 2007.
Cork County Council had sought judicial review of a Tribunal determination that struck out two revised valuations. The council argued that it had not received documents required under section 36(2) of the Valuation Act 2001 and had therefore lost an opportunity to take part in the Tribunal hearing and respond to the notification issue. It also argued that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction by issuing its determination after the statutory six-month period.
The dispute arose from revisions requested in 1998 for railway-line hereditaments in Rathmorgan and Carhoo, where fibre optic cable was being laid for ESAT Telecom. The council sent notice of the revision request to ESAT at an address it had left in 1995. ESAT later appealed, arguing that it had not been notified as required by the Valuation Act 1988. The Commissioner of Valuation did not prove compliance with the notification requirement, and the Tribunal concluded that the revisions were invalid.
The council received the appeal notices and was invited to say whether it intended to appear. It did not take part in the Tribunal hearing. The High Court reviewed conflicting affidavit accounts about whether ESAT had raised the notification issue during an earlier appeal to the Commissioner. The judge found that the issue of non-notification had been raised at that stage, but that the fact the 1998 letter had gone to ESAT’s former address emerged only in October 2002. The précis contained a possible explanation for why ESAT had not received the notice.
The court held that section 36(2) required the Tribunal to consider whether the council, as a rating authority directly affected by the appeal, should receive the précis. In this case, the judge said it should have been sent. That would have allowed the council to reconsider whether to participate; the court did not find that the council had in fact notified ESAT or determine that the council could have proved that it did.
The judge rejected the council’s separate argument that the late determination invalidated the appeal. Because the appeal began before the 2001 Act came into force, the six-month time limit in section 37(2) was directory rather than mandatory in these circumstances.
The court concluded that it saw no basis to withhold the relief sought, but left the appropriate orders for a later hearing with the parties. The judgment therefore did not itself specify the final order.