No legal or factual basis for challenge to rateable valuation of two properties

Judicial review - rateable valuations – beneficial owner of a clothes shop challenging the rateable valuation of two properties - Meath County Council has claimed rates in the amount of €80,484.83 in respect of both premises – second premises owned by his uncle – no locus standi to challenge the rates in relation to this property - claim that the Commissioner of Valuation has failed to comply with the requirements of the Valuation Act, 2001 – claim that the Commissioner has failed to revise the valuation list applicable to the two properties within a period of five to ten years of the entry into force of the 2001 Act – applicable law – no order under s. 19 (1) has been made by the Commissioner and consequently a valuation list has not been published in respect of Co. Meath - any list which pre-dates the commencement of the Act remains in force until the new valuation list is published in accordance with s. 23 - discretion of the Commissioner –the Commissioner is not currently subject to the time-frame imposed by statute for the revaluation of properties in Co. Meath - nothing in the statute to suggest that the five to ten year period applies and commences to run from the date upon which the Act comes into force or the date of the valuation list prepared and published prior to 2001 - properties, the subject matter of these proceedings, are already included in a pre-2001 valuation list - application for a revision of the valuation of any property may be made if there has been “a material change of circumstances – test for material change of circumstances - no such application - the existing pre-2001 valuation list is in full force and continuing effect – how the “value” of a relevant property is determined - neither a change in the market value of the property nor a decrease in the value of the business operated from it, are relevant to a revision of an individual entry on the valuation list – locus standi – company in liquidation – delay – application made outside relevant limitation period – no application to enlarge time – court rejected the argument that there was a continuing breach - no legal or factual basis upon which to grant any of the reliefs claimed.