High Court: Valuation Tribunal decision reversed

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 594
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Ms Justice Miriam O’ Regan found that the Valuation Tribunal was in error in its failure to deal with pertinent matters in its decision and made unsustainable findings of fact. 

Background

The applicant, a company running a large potato, cereal and tillage operation in North Cork, appealed against a determination by the Commissioner of Valuation on the basis that the Commissioner should not have fixed a net annual value of its property, but should have excluded the property in the relevant valuation list.

The Valuation Tribunal identified that it was necessary to determine whether the holdings on the applicant’s extensive lands could constitute “relevant property not rateable” by virtue of being exempted “farm buildings” as defined by s.3 of the Valuation Act 2001. That issue in turn depended on the definition of “farm buildings” and “processing” under the 2001 Act.

S.3 of the 2001 Act defined “farm buildings” as inter alia buildings on land developed for horticultural or forestry and used solely in connection with the carrying out of horticultural or forestry activities on that land, other than buildings used for processing or storage of agricultural, horticultural or forestry goods.

The respondent’s position was that the subject buildings were not used solely in connection with horticultural activities on the land and that all buildings used for processing and temperature controlled storage were rateable on the basis that the subject buildings were used for an activity after the growth of the potatoes and onions had finished.

In that regard, the respondent relied on Nangles Nurseries v Commissioner of Valuation [2008] IEHC 73, Draper v Commissioner of Valuation VA17/5/350 and Gadera Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation VA11/3/030. 

The Valuation Tribunal

The Tribunal recorded that the applicant stored potatoes dirty in boxes once harvested and kept them at a controlled temperature to prevent sprouting, following by warming and machine washing once ready for packing. The same procedure was noted to apply to onions, save insofar as they did not need to be warmed and could go straight from storage to packaging.

Distinguishing the cases relied upon by the respondent, the Tribunal determined that potatoes and onions did not become a “product that has been processed” upon removal from the ground and that horticultural activity only ceased when they were cleaned, sorted and packaged for distribution to the retailer. 

The Tribunal further indicated that there was nothing in the 2001 Act to suggest that “storage” only envisaged the storage of produce, rather than equipment, and that temperature-controlled storage to prevent deterioration was not “processing”.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis that the property was not rateable.

Following a request by the respondent to state a case to the High Court under s.39 of the 2001 Act, the Tribunal stated three questions for the opinion of the High Court.

Issues

The first question for the High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that Nangles Nurseries, Draper and Gadera Ltd could be distinguished on the facts as found in the appeal.

The remaining questions concerned whether the Tribunal was correct in its determination as to when horticulture activity on potatoes and onions ceases, and whether it was correct in holding that the manner of storage of the potatoes and onions did not make the applicant’s activity “processing” at that time.

The High Court

In respect of the Tribunal’s treatment of Nangles Nurseries, Ms Justice O’ Regan remarked that the decision was particularly instructive in the matter before her in dealing with the concept of processing as appears in the definition of “farm buildings”.

The judge was also unconvinced by the Tribunal’s reliance on the factual differences between Nangles Nurseries and the case before the court, and was satisfied that a number of matters relied upon by the Tribunal, including that in the instant case crops were grown on adjoining lands and were not “bought or brought in”, were not relevant so as to distinguish Nangles Nurseries.

The court was equally unimpressed by the distinguishing of Draper for reasons including that the case did not address storage or overlapping activities, finding that Draper dealt with the definition of “farm buildings” in that, amongst other matters, it considered the exception to the exemption and therefore was particularly similar to the within matter save that the post horticultural activity was identified as washing and grading which did not apparently alter the crops in any way and packaging or bagging of crops did not occur within the relevant buildings.

As to Gadera Ltd, the court noted that that decision was distinguished as it did not support the Nangles Nurseries approach on the meaning of processing and concerned farm buildings as in the subject case, but that the analysis done was on the requirement for buildings to be used “solely in connection with the carrying on of the horticultural activity” rather than whether or not there was processing.  

Ms Justice Bolger also considered her jurisdiction to deal with arguments not made before the Tribunal, being whether or not the Tribunal erred in failing to deal with part of the definition of farm buildings following “other than” at paragraph (ii) thereof, which excludes from the exemption buildings used for the storage of horticultural goods not produced on the land attached to those buildings.  

In that regard, the court accepted that it was necessary during the course of the appeal for the applicant to show that the relevant buildings came within the exemption without being included in the exception to the exemption for rates. 

Accordingly, Ms Justice Bolger considered that the paragraphs referable to buildings and horticulture user were before the Tribunal and that notwithstanding that its determination did not deal with the issue, “nevertheless the issue of use of the farm buildings for storage other than crops grown on the attached lands was before the Tribunal and was raised.”

In those circumstances, the court determined that it had jurisdiction to deal with the point and found that it was clear from the evidence of the respondent that the subject crops were grown on lands not attached to the applicant’s buildings and that those buildings came within the exception to the exemption from rates.

Ms Justice Bolger concluded, “I am satisfied that the Valuation Tribunal was in error in not dealing with the issue of the outside holdings in its decision. Furthermore, the point of distinction with Nangles Nurseries identified at para. 10.11(vii) where Nangles Nurseries is distinguished on the basis that the crops are grown on the adjoining land and amounts to an unsustainable finding of fact.”

Conclusion

Finding that the applicant’s buildings did not have the benefit of the exemption from rates, the High Court reversed the Tribunal’s decision and answered each question raised in the negative.

Castlecor Potatoes Unlimited Company v Tailte Éireann [2026] IEHC 594