Judgment: 2005-07-29 · Court archive

Bulmers loses High Court appeal over rating of cider tanks at Clonmel plant

High Court · 2005 IEHC 260

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Bulmers Limited
What

Bulmers loses High Court appeal over rating of cider tanks at Clonmel plant

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dowd's Lane
  • Annerville
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The dispute concerned 56 tanks or vats interconnected by pipework and pumps. Bulmers argued that the vessels should be treated as machinery or, alternatively, as plant primarily used to induce changes in the apple juice and cider held inside them. Either classification could have removed them from rateable valuation under the legislation considered by the court.

The High Court has upheld a ruling that tanks and vats used in cider production at Bulmers Limited's Dowd's Lane plant in Clonmel can be included in the property's rateable valuation.

The dispute concerned 56 tanks or vats interconnected by pipework and pumps. Bulmers argued that the vessels should be treated as machinery or, alternatively, as plant primarily used to induce changes in the apple juice and cider held inside them. Either classification could have removed them from rateable valuation under the legislation considered by the court.

The Valuation Tribunal rejected both arguments. Bulmers then brought a case stated to the High Court, a procedure under which identified questions of law arising from the Tribunal's decision were referred to the court.

The Clonmel operation included 20 stainless steel tanks, 22 timber vats and 14 concrete tanks described as disused. The cider-making process involved fermentation, maturation, pumping between vessels and filtration before the product was transported to Bulmers' Annerville plant for further processing and bottling.

Mr Justice Quirke said the High Court should be slow to interfere with decisions of the expert Valuation Tribunal unless there was an identifiable legal error or an unsustainable factual finding.

On the machinery issue, the judge held that the Tribunal was entitled to find that the vessels remained tanks or receptacles. Their connection to pumps, pipework and other equipment did not necessarily convert them into machinery.

The court also upheld the finding that the tanks were primarily used for storage or containment. The legislation expressly contemplated that a natural or chemical process could occur while a substance was being contained without making the vessel exempt from valuation.

The Tribunal's findings were therefore supported by evidence and no error of law was established. Its determination remained in place.

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