The High Court has sent three public house valuation appeals back to the Valuation Tribunal after finding that its decisions did not adequately explain how revised figures were reached or how comparable properties and market data informed them.
In a judgment delivered on 18 April 2024, Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell considered cases concerning properties in Ardagh, County Longford, and Moneygall, County Offaly. The Commissioner of Valuation had asked the Tribunal to state cases for the High Court on questions of law after it reduced valuations in two cases and issued a determination in the third that appeared to increase the valuation despite saying it was decreasing it.
The disputes concerned Net Annual Values, which estimate the rent a property might reasonably achieve each year. The Commissioner had used the Fair Maintainable Trade method, which estimates maintainable business trade and applies a percentage to arrive at a notional rent.
In the case brought by Paschal Lyons, the Tribunal reduced the estimated trade from €200,000 to €120,000 and the applied percentage from 7% to 6%, producing a valuation of €7,200 instead of €14,000. The High Court found that the Tribunal explained why it considered the original figures too high, but did not explain how it selected the replacement figures or how its decision related to comparable properties and the emerging valuation list.
A similar shortcoming arose in the case brought by Lyons Pub Ardagh Limited. The Tribunal’s determination stated that it was reducing the valuation, but set it at €16,700, above the Commissioner’s certificate of €15,770. The parties agreed that the figure was an increase. The judge said the court could not determine what figures the Tribunal had intended and would not speculate to repair the decision.
In the third case, brought by Ollie Hayes, the Tribunal reduced the valuation from €19,600 to €15,000. The judge said its reasons engaged more with market data than the other decisions, including evidence concerning the village bypass, the Obama Plaza and the effect of the 2011 visit by then US President Barack Obama. However, the Tribunal did not explain how it arrived at the revised trade figure or why it chose 6% rather than another percentage, and did not address the Commissioner’s argument that the premises was a “landmark pub”.
The court did not decide whether the revised valuations were substantively correct or answer the remaining valuation questions. It held that the Tribunal may reduce either the trade figure or the percentage, or both, if supported by evidence and directed to the statutory valuation objectives. The judgment said the matters would be remitted to the Tribunal. Final arguments on the form of orders and costs were listed for 26 April 2024.