The High Court dismissed an application by Neal Sweeney and McElhinney Fashions Limited challenging rateable valuations for two properties in Trim, County Meath. In a judgment delivered on 19 April 2016, Mr Justice McDermott found no legal or factual basis to grant the relief sought.
The properties were listed as Lot 9B Castlelawns, occupied by McElhinney Fashions Limited, and 11 Castlelawns, described as a shop and yard and registered as occupied by Pat McElhinney, Mr Sweeney’s uncle. Their listed valuations were €266.64 and €31.74. Meath County Council claimed €80,484.83 in rates from the company for both premises; those recovery proceedings were pending before Trim District Court.
The applicants argued that the Valuation Act 2001 required the Commissioner for Valuation to publish a new valuation list for Meath within five to ten years of the Act’s commencement, making the existing valuations invalid. The Commissioner submitted that the statutory period applied after a new list was published and that the earlier list remained in force until then.
The judge accepted that interpretation. No valuation order had been made for Meath under section 19 of the Act, and the valuation process had not begun there. The court held that the pre-2001 list continued under section 43 until a new list was published. It rejected the applicants’ argument that the Commissioner was in breach of section 25 and refused certiorari declaring the valuations void.
The judgment said an occupier or interest holder could seek a revision under the Act where the statutory criteria were met, including a material change of circumstances. Neither applicant had applied to revise either valuation. For a revision before a new section 23 list, the judge said values would be assessed against comparable properties on the existing list; changes in market value or in the business’s value would not themselves determine a revision.
The court also found that Mr Sweeney had no standing to challenge the valuation of either property. McElhinney Fashions Limited was in liquidation, and he could not represent the company in court. The judge said the liquidator was responsible for the company’s position on the rates claim and any defence in the District Court. Neither applicant had established a basis to act regarding the property occupied by Pat McElhinney.
The judge further found that the proceedings were outside the three-month time limit under the Rules of the Superior Courts, with no application to extend time. The court dismissed the application in full.