The High Court has dismissed Carrons Windfarm Limited’s application for judicial review of a Valuation Tribunal decision refusing discovery of documents relating to the valuation of nine other wind farms in County Limerick.
In a judgment delivered on 14 February 2018, Mr Justice Noonan held that the Tribunal acted lawfully and within its jurisdiction when it refused the request. The case concerned discovery during a separate appeal over the commercial rateable valuation of Carrons Windfarm’s property. It did not decide the correct valuation of the wind farm.
The Valuation Office initially proposed a net annual value (NAV) of €315,000 in June 2014. After the company made representations, the valuation list published in December 2014 assigned an NAV of €362,000. The Commissioner of Valuation later reduced it to €320,000. Carrons appealed that decision to the Tribunal, saying the appropriate valuation was €102,300.
At the appeal hearing, the Commissioner’s valuation manager, Patrick McMorrow, proposed to give evidence using a valuation scheme informed by accounts from nine other Limerick wind farms. Carrons sought documents relating to that scheme. It later withdrew a separate request concerning a wind farm development costs summary, leaving only the scheme documents in dispute.
The Tribunal refused discovery in February 2017. It concluded that Carrons had not shown the documents were both relevant and necessary to deal fairly with the grounds of appeal it had specified. The Tribunal also said Carrons could cross-examine McMorrow and that it would need sufficient evidence about the valuation scheme to assess the property’s value. It did not need to decide whether the documents were confidential.
Carrons argued in the High Court that the refusal was unlawful and would prevent effective cross-examination. Mr Justice Noonan said judicial review examines the lawfulness of the decision-making process, rather than acting as an appeal on the merits. He found that the Tribunal had considered detailed written and oral submissions and that the company’s grounds did not establish a basis for intervention. The judge also rejected claims that the Tribunal had failed to consider the appeal grounds or contradicted itself.
The court’s decision addressed only the discovery ruling. The underlying valuation appeal remained for the Tribunal, where the judge said Carrons would have an opportunity to test the Commissioner’s evidence in cross-examination, if it was admitted. The High Court dismissed the judicial review application.