The Supreme Court has dismissed Slattery’s Ltd’s judicial review challenge over rates charged on the Oliver St John Gogarty premises at 57/58 Fleet Street in Dublin’s Temple Bar.
The company carried out extensive redevelopment works during 1992. Internal walls, floors and most of the roof were removed before the four-storey over-basement licensed premises was substantially rebuilt and reopened. The works cost £562,240.
Under a Temple Bar urban renewal scheme, Slattery’s sought full remission of rates. The Commissioner of Valuation instead decided that the existing rateable valuation of £630 should receive a remission of £295, effectively treating the case as an increase in valuation attributable to improvements rather than an entirely new valuation.
The company maintained that the scale of reconstruction meant the entire valuation was attributable to the works and should qualify for full remission. Dublin Corporation separately pursued £22,473 in rates through the District Court. Its claim was upheld on appeal to the Circuit Court in January 1997.
Slattery’s then obtained leave in July 1997 to bring judicial review proceedings. In February 1999, the High Court held that the Commissioner’s decision was irrational and that the extensive works had created what should be regarded as a new building. It also extended the time for bringing the challenge.
The Supreme Court disagreed on both points.
Chief Justice Keane held that Slattery’s could not justify a cumulative delay of about three years by saying it had first pursued its position through the District and Circuit Courts. Those courts had no jurisdiction to overturn the Commissioner’s determination, particularly where he was not a party to those proceedings.
The court also held that the Commissioner’s partial-remission decision was one he was legally entitled to make. Even if it had been wrong on the merits, it was not so irrational or outside his jurisdiction as to be quashed by judicial review.
The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed Slattery’s judicial review claim.