The High Court has held that a Valuation Tribunal ruling on the valuation of a Dublin 8 commercial property was invalid because the tribunal did not give reasons for its decision. The court proposed to quash the ruling and said it would hear the parties on the consequences.
Ms Justice Murphy delivered judgment on 1 November 2017 in a judicial review brought by Marie Boland against the Valuation Tribunal, with the Commissioner of Valuation as notice party. The challenge concerned the tribunal’s 13 May 2015 decision to leave the property’s net annual value at €10,450.
Boland, the property’s freehold owner, argued during the valuation process that the premises had been vacant since 2008, were in poor repair and would require substantial work. She also disputed the comparators used to value it. She sought a NAV of €2,000. The judgment records that a builder’s estimate put the cost of necessary works at €31,795.50, and that Boland provided photographs and a letter from her letting agents.
The Commissioner’s representative argued that the property needed only cosmetic repairs and relied on the presumption that a certified valuation was valid. The judgment records that the parties gave evidence at the tribunal hearing on 23 April 2015. The tribunal’s written decision said it was persuaded by the Commissioner’s arguments about section 48(3) of the Valuation Act 2001, but did not explain what interpretation it accepted or why.
Justice Murphy held that the tribunal’s statutory duty required a written judgment setting out its reasons. The decision recited Boland’s grounds and stated that the tribunal had considered the evidence, but included no findings of fact, account of the parties’ cases or explanation of the applicable law. The judge said the hearing transcript and other material could not supply reasons omitted from the tribunal’s own judgment.
The High Court held the decision invalid because its stated reason was insufficient to let the court assess its lawfulness. It did not decide the separate claim that the tribunal had breached fair procedures or natural justice, saying that was unnecessary after its ruling on reasons. It also found the irrationality claim premature because the tribunal’s reasons were unknown. The court proposed to quash the tribunal’s decision and gave the parties an opportunity to address what should follow. The judgment does not record a final order quashing it.