The High Court ruled that the Valuation Tribunal was wrong in law to exclude any consideration of the earlier valuations of a pub and restaurant that were later amalgamated into one licensed premises in Kilkenny.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 16 December 2020, Mr Justice Barr answered “No” to a case-stated question asking whether the Tribunal was correct to hold that the two earlier properties were not comparable properties for the purposes of section 49 of the Valuation Act 2001.
The appeal concerned Dayhoff Limited and the Commissioner of Valuation. The premises at 23/24 John Street Upper had previously operated as two separate properties: a ground-floor pub and a first-floor restaurant. They had separate owners, entrances, telephone numbers and booking systems, and no physical connection. After amalgamation under one owner, works added a mezzanine and a stairwell linking the floors, and the premises became a single licensed operation.
The Tribunal had valued the revised premises at €257. It relied on three comparators put forward for Dayhoff and one for the Commissioner, using an average rate of €167.50 per square metre for the ground floor. By agreement, it applied one-third of that rate to the first floor. The Tribunal excluded the valuations that applied to the pub and restaurant before amalgamation.
The Commissioner challenged that exclusion in the case stated. It argued that the earlier valuations could be considered alongside other comparable properties, with the Tribunal deciding how much weight to give them. Dayhoff argued that the earlier premises were the subject property in previous forms, rather than “other properties” comparable to it, and defended the Tribunal’s approach.
Mr Justice Barr held that section 49 did not require a rigid rule excluding the pre-amalgamation valuations. The Tribunal could consider them, but was not bound to give them any particular weight. Their relevance would depend on the nature and use of the premises before and after the material change. The court also said an earlier valuation could not be used alone as a “bolt on” calculation without the comparison with other properties required by section 49.
The ruling was limited to the legal question in the case stated. The judge said the court could not determine whether the Tribunal had arrived at a fair and proper valuation, and did not decide the correct valuation for the premises. He found the Tribunal’s valuation methodology was otherwise correct, but its exclusion of the earlier valuations was an error of law. The parties were invited to file written submissions within four weeks on the final order, costs and any other matter arising.