145 / 322
GAZETTE
JULY/AUGIJST
19
The Unconstitutionality of the
County Rate on Land
by
Colum Gavan Duffy, M.A., LL.B.
Lecturer in Law, University College, Galway
O
N 23 July 1982, Mr. Justice Barrington, after an
extensive hearing of 14 days, delivered a most
learned and historic judgment on the constitutional effect
of the Valuation Acts from 1852 to 1964, in the case of
Brennan and Others
-v-
Wexford County Council and
Attorney-General.
Briefly, the plaintiffs succeeded in
obtaining a declaration of inconsistency with the
Constitution in respect of Sections 11 and 34 of the
Valuation Act 1852 and a declaration of invalidity in
respect of the other impunged statutory provisions, in so
far as they related to the Valuation Acts. The Plaintiffs
also obtained a declaration of invalidity in respect of the
valuation placed on their own lands. The Supreme Court
(O'Higgins C.J., Finlay P., Walsh J., Henchy J. and
Griffin J.) upheld the High Court decision in a single
judgment (per O'Higgins C.J.) on 20th January 1984.
The four plaintiffs, who were all members of the PLV.
Action Committee of Co. Wexford farmers, claimed
these declarations against Wexford Co. Council and the
Attorney General; Wexford Co. Council was allowed to
withdraw from the case from the outset.
Under the Valuation Acts and amending Acts, the
valuation of the lands and buildings of Ireland, by
reference to an estimate of the annual land value, was
carried out from 1852 to 1866 by Sir Richard Griffith. In
the course of these 14 years, agriculture became more
prosperous and rents rose consequently all over Ireland.
Griffith prepared "Instructions to Valuation" which
gave guidance in analysing the quality of the soil and
underlying rock. Section 34 of the 1952 Act contemplated
that there could be a general revaluation of all the lands
of Ireland from time to time; and revisions were provided
for every 14 years, but none in fact were ever undertaken.
However, the original land owner, unlike the owner of
buildings, had no right of appeal. In 1902, the Royal
Commission on Local Taxation stated that the Irish
valuation system was completely out of date, but nothing
was done and no further revaluations have been carried
out to the present day.
The plaintiff, Brennan, had a farm of 64 acres near
New Ross, and the other three plaintiffs had farms of
from 106 to 150 acres in other parts of Co. Wexford. Each
valuation of the plaintiffs' lands represented the original
rateable valuation which determined the liability to the
State to pay income tax, resource tax and health
contributions and the liability to the Wexford County
Council to pay rates subject to reliefs. The plaintiffs
claimed that their present valuation, as originally
assessed, bore no true relationship to the real value of
their land, and were wholly inconsistent on the double
ground that these valuations were fixed as a result of
limited scientific knowledge after the Famine of 1845,
and were also fixed in relation to commodity prices
prevailing between 1849 and 1851. Because of these
factors the plaintiffs contended that these rateable
valuations constituted an arbitrary, unjust and
inequitable basis for the imposition of taxes; and that,
consequently, the Valuation Acts constituted an unjust
attack on their property rights contrary to Article 43 of
the Constitution. They also claimed that the failure of
Parliament to allow them a right of appeal violated the
basic right of fairness guaranteed by Article 40 (3) of the
Constitution.
The aim of the Valuation Act 1852 was to have one
uniform system for the valuation of lands. As stated,
Section 34 of that Act (as applied) provided that a County
Council could apply to the Minister for Finance every 14
years from the last general valuation for a revaluation,
but this had never been done in the Republic. In Northern
Ireland, quinquennial valuations were introduced in
April 1936. During the course of the High Court hearing
evidence was given by the four plaintiffs, by two soil
scientists; by the property arbitrator and three
auctioneers; and by a farm consultant and a statistician.
All the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs conceded that
there was a relationship between valuation and the price
of farms, because larger farms had a higher selling price
than hill farms. A number of examples of the inconsis-
tencies of valuation were given, e.g., the plaintiff, Clancy,
farmed 106 acres, and his rateable was £105.50, whereas,
his brother who had 32 acres of superior arable land
useful for tillage or pasture, had only a valuation of
£62.50.
Plaintiffs' Submissions
After full consideration of all the evidence, the High
Court was satisfied with the validity of the following
submission (as also, on appeal was the Supreme Court):
(1) The existing valuation system did not provide a
uniform system for valuing lands.
(2) There was no consistency between one county and
another.
(3) The Valuation system had failed to reflect the
changing patterns of modern agriculture.
(4) The whole system was shot through with anomalies
and inconsistencies.
The plaintiffs relied on the following Articles of the
Constitution for relief:— Article 43; Article 40 (1); and
Article 40 (3).
As regards Article 43, the Supreme Court decision in
Blake and others
-v-
Attorney-General
1
was followed, in
which it was stated that Article 43 did not say what the
137