The High Court has sent a valuation appeal concerning the Jackson Court Hotel on Dublin’s Harcourt Street back to the Valuation Tribunal, finding that the Tribunal had not adequately explained its decision to apply an 11% rate to all of a nightclub’s door and cloakroom receipts.
Mr Justice Heslin delivered the judgment on 1 October 2021 in a case stated by the Tribunal at the request of the Commissioner of Valuation. The court examined whether the Tribunal’s reasons for reducing the property’s net annual value (NAV) were sufficient. It did not conduct a fresh valuation or decide what NAV should apply.
The Commissioner had set the property’s NAV at €1.75 million. Breanagh Catering Limited, the occupier and ratepayer, appealed that valuation to the Tribunal, which in January 2016 reduced the NAV to €1.155 million. The dispute concerned how to value €3.2 million in annual door and cloakroom receipts linked to Copper Face Jack’s nightclub in the hotel basement.
The valuers agreed on percentages for hotel rooms, food and beverages. They disagreed on the nightclub receipts. The Commissioner’s valuer proposed 11% on the first €1 million and 40% on the remaining €2.2 million. The ratepayer’s valuer proposed a tiered approach with lower percentages. The Tribunal instead applied 11% to the full €3.2 million.
The High Court said the Tribunal’s written decision did not explain why it chose 11%, how it resolved the competing approaches, or how it dealt with evidence from the Commissioner’s valuer. That evidence included full receipts-and-expenditure valuations, which the valuer relied on to support the higher rate on receipts above €1 million. The High Court also noted a mathematical error in the Tribunal’s account of the ratepayer’s proposed valuation: the relevant figure was €150,000, not €51,000.
The court said the Tribunal’s statutory task was to decide whether the Commissioner’s valuation was incorrect, with the burden of proving that resting on the ratepayer. It found the Tribunal’s reasons did not make clear how its decision related to that test. The court did not determine whether 11% or either party’s proposed percentage was correct.
Answering each of the stated questions of law in the negative, the High Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a hearing. It directed the parties to correspond on the form of the final order, including costs, and provided for written submissions if they could not agree.