Judgment: 2019-05-29 · Court archive

Supreme Court affirms limits on rates challenge in Circuit Court

The court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that West Wood could not use its Circuit Court rates defence to pursue a public law challenge to Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council’s rate.

Supreme Court · [2019] IESC 043

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (Plaintiff)
  • West Wood Club Limited (Defendant)
  • Peter Charleton (Judge)
What

The court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that West Wood could not use its Circuit Court rates defence to pursue a public law challenge to Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council’s rate.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dún Laoghaire Rathdown
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Supreme Court has affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision in a dispute over unpaid rates between Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council and West Wood Club Limited. It held that the Circuit Court could not determine West Wood’s challenge to the validity of the 2011 rate, which was based on public law grounds.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision in a dispute over unpaid rates between Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council and West Wood Club Limited. It held that the Circuit Court could not determine West Wood’s challenge to the validity of the 2011 rate, which was based on public law grounds.

The council sought €176,800 in rates for 2011. Its claim was brought in the Circuit Court as a civil debt. West Wood’s amended defence argued, among other things, that the council’s public sports facilities were not charged rates, giving them an advantage over private facilities and breaching European Union State aid rules. It also alleged bias. West Wood pursued the State aid argument at the Circuit Court hearing; an appeal concerning the rates before the Valuation Tribunal had not proceeded.

The Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Peter Charleton on 29 May 2019, said the council’s decision to strike a rate was an exercise of public law. The court reviewed earlier authority and concluded that a challenge to the validity of such a decision generally had to be brought through judicial review or proceedings in the High Court, subject to analogous time limits.

The judgment recognised narrow exceptions in a rates or charges recovery case: where the amount claimed does not comply with the relevant order, where illegality is clear on the face of it, or where there is a clear error on the face of the order. It concluded that West Wood’s State aid argument did not fall within those exceptions. The judgment noted that the argument required evidence, including expert economic analysis.

West Wood also submitted that requiring public law challenges to follow the appropriate procedure disadvantaged claims based on European Union law. The Supreme Court rejected that submission, finding that the same procedural requirements applied to domestic and EU law points.

The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and order. It did not determine whether the State aid allegation was made out or decide the underlying merits of that challenge.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review