The Court of Appeal has ordered a fresh hearing of a rates appeal concerning the Jackson Court Hotel and its Copper Face Jacks nightclub, after finding that the Valuation Tribunal had not adequately explained its decision to apply a flat 11% to door and cloakroom receipts.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 8 March 2024, Mr Justice Robert Haughton said the Tribunal’s reasons did not show how it arrived at 11%, why it rejected the competing tiered approaches, or how it dealt with valuation evidence put forward by the Commissioner of Valuation. Justices Pilkington and Butler agreed.
The dispute arose from a 2011 revaluation of the Dublin hotel. The Commissioner set its net annual value at €1.75 million. Breanagh Catering Limited appealed, and in 2016 the Tribunal reduced the figure to €1.155 million. It applied 11% to €3.2 million in door and cloakroom receipts linked to the nightclub, rather than the Commissioner’s proposed tiered rates of 11% on the first €1 million and 40% on the balance.
The Tribunal said no evidence supported the Commissioner’s 40% rate, and described a flat 11% as more equitable. But the Commissioner’s valuer had submitted evidence based on full receipts-and-expenditure valuations, including that a 40% rate was justified. The Court of Appeal said the Tribunal’s written decision did not explain whether it considered or rejected that evidence, or why.
The court also noted errors in the figures discussed by the Tribunal. Breanagh’s proposed figure for door and cloakroom receipts was €150,000, but the Tribunal decision referred to €51,000 and said this represented 1.6% of receipts. The judgment said the correct percentage was about 4.7%. It was unclear how much the error affected the Tribunal’s reasoning.
The High Court had answered the relevant question of law in the negative and sent the matter back for a hearing. The Court of Appeal upheld that conclusion. It did not determine what percentage should apply, whether the Commissioner’s valuation was excessive, or the other questions posed in the Case Stated. Instead, it ordered a fresh hearing of Breanagh’s appeal by a different Tribunal panel.
The court said the Tribunal may consider allowing the parties to submit fresh evidence summaries and written legal submissions. It proposed that Breanagh pay the Commissioner’s costs of the appeal, subject to adjudication if the parties cannot agree. Breanagh may seek a different costs order within seven days of delivery of the judgment.