Dayhoff Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation (Approved) [2020] IEHC 661 (16 December 2020)

Dayhoff Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation (Approved) [2020] IEHC 661 (16 December 2020)

The Tribunal erred in law by adopting a strict exclusionary rule preventing consideration of pre-amalgamation valuations; s.49 does not warrant such exclusion. All relevant evidence, including pre-MCC valuations, should be considered, with weight determined by the Tribunal. The correct approach is to include pre-MCC valuations as possible comparators, alongside other comparable properties, to ensure fair valuation in accordance with the tone of the list.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 661
Parties
Appellant/respondent to High Court Appeal: Dayhoff Limited; Respondent/appellant to High Court Appeal: Commissioner of Valuation
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Determination of Case Stated From Valuation Tribunal
Outcome
Question posed in the case stated answered in the negative; Tribunal was wrong to exclude pre-MCC valuations.
Legal Topics
Valuation of Property, Material Change of Circumstances, Statutory Interpretation, Curial Deference
Property Law Administrative Law Valuation of Property Material Change of Circumstances Statutory Interpretation Curial Deference

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dayhoff Limited

Appellant/respondent to High Court Appeal

Commissioner of Valuation

Respondent/appellant to High Court Appeal

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Determination of Case Stated From Valuation Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Valuation Tribunal was correct in law to exclude valuations of two properties prior to amalgamation when determining the valuation of the amalgamated property under s.49(1) of the Valuation Act 2001

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by adopting a strict exclusionary rule preventing consideration of pre-amalgamation valuations; s.49 does not warrant such exclusion. All relevant evidence, including pre-MCC valuations, should be considered, with weight determined by the Tribunal. The correct approach is to include pre-MCC valuations as possible comparators, alongside other comparable properties, to ensure fair valuation in accordance with the tone of the list.

Court Disposition

Question posed in the case stated answered in the negative; Tribunal was wrong to exclude pre-MCC valuations.

Orders

  • Parties may furnish written submissions within four weeks regarding final order and costs.