The Supreme Court allowed Westlink Toll Bridge Limited’s and Celtic Road Group (Dundalk) Limited’s appeals on whether payments of toll revenue to the Minister for the Environment or the National Roads Authority could be deducted when calculating the rateable value of their toll operations.
The Court held that the revenue shares required by agreements made under section 63 of the Roads Act 1993 were charges payable “by or under” an enactment for the purposes of section 48(3) of the Valuation Act 2001. They could therefore be deducted in calculating the properties’ net annual value. The Court said the High Court had erred in treating the payments as private contractual arrangements outside that provision. The Valuation Tribunal had reached the correct conclusion on this issue.
The judgment concerned two appeals from a High Court decision on cases stated by the Valuation Tribunal. Westlink’s appeal related to the revaluation of its M50 toll facility in Dublin after a second bridge was built beside the first over the River Liffey. Celtic’s appeal concerned the initial rating of tolls on a 21.74-kilometre section of the M1 between Gormanstown and Monasterboice. Both companies had agreements requiring them to pass a share of gross toll revenue to the Minister.
A separate issue concerned Celtic’s obligation to maintain the entire 54.7-kilometre M1, although tolls were collected on only the shorter section. The Commissioner of Valuation cross-appealed the High Court’s decision allowing the full-road maintenance costs to be considered. The Supreme Court upheld that decision. It reasoned that Celtic’s right to collect tolls depended on compliance with its agreement, including maintaining the whole road; failure could result in termination of the agreement and loss of that right.
The Commissioner also sought to replace its cross-appeal grounds, arguing that no M1 maintenance costs should be deductible, or alternatively that only costs for the tolled stretch should count. The Court refused the amendment. The proposed argument had not been made before the Tribunal or High Court and would have raised a materially different issue requiring different evidence. The Court also held that the new point did not arise on the case stated and was outside the appellate jurisdiction provided by section 39 of the Valuation Act.
The Court’s conclusions were limited to the issues properly before it. It did not decide a separate argument about how the revenue share should be treated in the receipts and expenditure valuation method, noting that the point was not raised in the case stated. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 23 October 2013.