The High Court has sent a dispute over the valuation of Carrowleagh Wind Farm back to the Valuation Tribunal, finding that the tribunal breached fair procedures when it declined to consider an objection raised during the hearing.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled that the tribunal should have addressed the ratepayer’s objection concerning Section 61 of the Valuation Act 2001. That provision covers property located in more than one rating authority area and provides for its value to be apportioned between those authorities, unless the Commissioner deems the property to be in one area.
The wind farm comprises 16 turbines and a grid connection. Thirteen turbines and the connection are in County Mayo; three turbines are in County Sligo. The appeal concerned a valuation certificate issued during a Sligo revaluation. The order set a valuation date of 30 October 2015.
At the tribunal hearing, the Commissioner argued that the entire wind farm had been valued as one property and its value apportioned to the two areas. The ratepayer argued that the Sligo turbines should be valued separately. It also objected that no separate valuation certificate had apparently been issued for the Mayo part of the wind farm.
The tribunal considered that the objection was not properly before it because it had not been included as a ground in the notice of appeal. The High Court found that approach unfair. The Commissioner’s reliance on Section 61 had first been disclosed at the hearing, and the cross-boundary valuation issue had already been raised in the ratepayer’s evidence. The judge said it was unduly harsh to hold the ratepayer to grounds it could not reasonably have known to include.
The judge did not decide whether the Commissioner had correctly applied Section 61 or whether the tribunal could review the apportionment. He said those questions should first be considered by the tribunal, which may hear evidence about how the Mayo part was treated for valuation purposes. The tribunal must also consider the Commissioner’s argument that the statutory appeal does not extend to reviewing the apportionment.
The High Court answered in the negative the question of whether the tribunal was legally entitled to reject the objection on procedural grounds. It remitted the matter for reconsideration. The court did not decide a separate argument about increasing the valuation after dismissing an appeal, saying it was not yet clear that the issue would arise. The final form of the order remained to be addressed at a later hearing.