The High Court found that the Valuation Tribunal made errors of fact and law when reviewing the valuation of the Brown Thomas car park, but upheld its use of the comparison method and rejected other grounds of appeal.
The case concerned a section 39 appeal by Stanberry Investments Limited against the Tribunal’s 2016 decision on the rateable valuation of a car park at 47–53 Clarendon Street, Dublin. The appeal was confined to questions of law. Ms Justice O’Regan delivered judgment on 8 November 2018.
The Commissioner of Valuation had agreed a valuation of €1.14 million in August 2014. Following an appeal and a two-day Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal reduced the rate applied per parking space by €250, setting the valuation at €1.045 million.
The company argued that the Tribunal’s decision relied on factual errors and wrongly treated the Setanta and Trinity Street car parks as evidence of the list’s “emerging tone” while their valuations remained under appeal. It also challenged the Tribunal’s comparisons and its choice of valuation method.
Justice O’Regan held that the Tribunal had erred in fact regarding contract parking at Arnott’s. The judgment said there was no evidence to suggest contract parking existed there, and the error appeared in the Tribunal’s conclusion, which informed its findings. The court considered it material, particularly given the Tribunal’s stated difficulty comparing north-side and south-side car parks.
The judge also found an error of law in treating Setanta and Trinity Street as showing the emerging tone of the list while their valuations were still under appeal. She said that concept involved properties whose valuations had been accepted, agreed or determined. The phrase “subject to adjustment” did not cure the error: if the Tribunal anticipated changes on appeal, it was effectively estimating their outcome.
The court rejected the remaining challenges. It found no evidence that north-side car parks had been excluded, and held that the Tribunal could prefer comparisons close to the subject property. It also found no sufficient basis to disturb the use of the comparison method, and treated the alleged error concerning Dawson Street as insignificant.
In answering the five questions of law, the court found errors on the Arnott’s fact and the emerging-tone treatment of Setanta and Trinity Street. It answered the other three against the company. The judgment does not state a separate order reversing, amending or remitting the Tribunal’s valuation; the court’s stated action was to answer the questions of law.