The High Court has ruled that the Commissioner of Valuation and the Valuation Tribunal must consider both valuation methods and comparable property values when dealing with appeals under the Valuation Act 2001.
The ruling arose from a case stated concerning six Tribunal decisions about properties in the Fingal County Council rating area. The businesses had appealed their valuations and persuaded the Tribunal to amend them. The Commissioner challenged the Tribunal’s approach. Carlton Hotel Dublin Airport Ltd and Nethercross Ltd, which trades as Roganstown Golf and Country Club, contested the High Court appeal. Four nursing-home respondents did not participate and agreed to abide by its outcome.
The dispute concerned how the Act’s appeal provisions apply to a property’s net annual value, or NAV. The Commissioner argued that appeals were constrained by the values of comparable properties on the valuation list, and that the Tribunal could not reconsider the valuation method used by the Valuation Office. The respondents argued that the NAV should be assessed on its merits and that the Tribunal could consider the evidence and methods used.
The Tribunal had considered competing valuation methods, including the receipts and expenditure method, which uses a business’s income and costs to help estimate rental value. It found that method provided a reliable basis for estimating NAV for the properties in question, despite difficulties in applying it. The judgment noted that the Tribunal was not persuaded that the Commissioner’s comparative evidence was decisive.
Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley said the Commissioner was right that uniformity and equity matter, but that the first task is to determine whether a property’s NAV has been properly assessed. She rejected the argument that the Tribunal could not review valuation methods. She also held that comparable values on the list are material and cannot be treated as a merely procedural matter. Both valuation methods and comparisons must be considered as they arise in an appeal.
The court did not, however, answer the certified question of whether the Tribunal had erred by disregarding or failing to consider comparable values. The judge said the Tribunal had approached the cases properly in light of the evidence and submissions, and had adopted a method it considered suitable. The court’s answer was that the Commissioner and, on appeal, the Tribunal are obliged to consider the matters set out in section 31 of the Act. The judgment did not itself set new valuations for the six properties.