High Court 

The Continuing Trustees of Gurteen Agricultural College v The Registrar of Friendly Societies

1998/26 CA 

30 July 1999 

MCGUINNESS J: 

Gurteen Agricultural College was established by the Conference of the Methodist Church in Ireland in 1948. By resolution of the Conference of the Methodist Church in Ireland held in Dublin in the month of June 1946, it was resolved that the Council of the Methodist Church in Ireland on Social Welfare should proceed with the purchase premises for the purpose of setting up an agricultural college. Lands and premises were purchased at Gurteen, Co Tipperary and the Methodist Conference held in Portadown in June, 1947 approved the finding of the agricultural college to be known as "Gurteen Agricultural College". The college was established through a trust deed which is dated 2 September, 1948. The lands, hereditaments and premises of the college are vested in the continuing trustees under that deed. The deed also sets up the Governing Board of the college; the governors consist of the trustees and such other persons as the Methodist Conference in Ireland may from time to time appoint. The principal of the college is a member of the Governing Board. In addition under the trust there is a Management Committee drawn from the trustees and governors and which also includes the principal. 

The trust is a non profit making body. Under Clause 23 of the trust deed all monies already subscribed or which may hereafter be subscribed and paid or all other property which may be given or dedicated for the purposes of the said college shall be transferred to and vested in the trustees for the aforesaid trust and purposes." Under Clause 26 it is provided that if there is a surplus profit on the working of the college the trustees may use this profit to form a sinking fund to meet necessary expenses or repairs or alterations or to acquire additional ground or premises; a proportion of any such profit may also be applied to funding scholarships and exhibitions. 

The college started from modest beginnings with only just over 20 acres of land. Due to the efforts of the college itself and to the gifts, subscriptions and assistance of supporters and benefactors the lands and premises of the college now comprise two farms totalling 740 acres. In common with other agricultural colleges in the country, both publicly and privately owned, the courses of education provided at Gurteen are conducted in close co-operation with Teagasc -- the Agriculture and Food Development Authority established pursuant to the Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Act, 1988. 

By application dated 21 November, 1996 the trustees of Gurteen Agricultural College applied to the Registrar of Friendly Societies for a certificate for the purposes of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843 declaring that the college was entitled to the benefit of that Act. Section 1 of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843 provides:- 

"1. No person or persons shall be assessed or rated, or liable to be assessed or rated, or liable to pay, to any county, borough, county parochial, or other local rates or cesses, in respect of any land, houses, or buildings, or parts of houses, or buildings, belonging to any society instituted for purposes of science, literature or the fine arts exclusively, either as tenant or as owner, and occupied by it for the transaction of its business, and for carrying into effect its purposes, provided that such society shall be supported wholly or in part by annual voluntary contributions and shall not, and by its laws may not, make any dividend, gift, division, or bonus in money unto or between any of its members, and provided also that such society shall obtain the certificate of the Barrister at Law or Lord Advocate, as hereinafter mentioned" 

The Registrar of Friendly Societies is the present equivalent of the Barrister at Law or Lord Advocate mentioned in the section. On 17 April, 1997 the Registrar of Friendly Societies wrote to the Solicitors for the trustees stating that he could not grant a certificate under section 1 of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843 in respect of the college. He based this decision both on his opinion that the college was not instituted for the purposes of science exclusively and on his opinion that it was not supported wholly or in part by annual voluntary contributions. He stated that student fees could not be deemed to be voluntary contributions and in addition that State grants 'were not deemed to be "annual voluntary contributions" within the meaning of the Act of 1843. In his letter he referred both to "previous official reports on rating appeals" and to an opinion of Counsel which, he said, confirmed his view. 

Messrs Richard Kennedy & Company, Solicitors for the trustees, corresponded with the Registrar asking him to supply them with the case law and opinion on which he relied. On 6 August, 1997 the Registrar replied enclosing a copy of the case of St Marylebone Metropolitan Borough Council v Institute of Public Administration, an English Lands Tribunal case of 1951, together with an extract from Counsel's opinion from the late Aidan Browne SC dated May 1984 in connection with the Old Carlow Society. 

Section 5 of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843 provides that where the "Barrister or Lord Advocate" refuses to certify that a society is entitled to the benefit of the Act the Society can submit its laws, rules, and regulations to the Court of Quarter Sessions for the Borough or County where the land or buildings of the society are situated and it is open to the justices of the Quarter Sessions to over-rule the decision of the Barrister or Lord Advocate. In modern terms this is the equivalent of an appeal to the Circuit Court. 

The trustees accordingly brought an appeal against the decision of the Registrar to the Circuit Court. The matter was heard by the Circuit Court in Nenagh by Her Honour Judge Buttimer, who on 13 February, 1998 made an order upholding the decision of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. 

The trustees now appeal to this Court against that order. 

The overall situation in regard to the payment of rates by Agricultural Colleges is somewhat anomalous. There are twelve agricultural colleges in the State. Four of these are directly run by the State; the remaining eight are privately owned. Of the privately owned colleges six are run by religious orders, including the college at Rockwell, County Tipperary. The college at An Grianan, County Louth, is run by the Irish Countrywomen's Association. Gurteen is the remaining college. 

All twelve colleges run courses covering a wide spectrum including the theoretical aspect of agricultural science and its "applied science" aspect in regard to practical farming. The courses offered by all of the colleges are very similar; the funding they receive from the State and the European Union is identical; and the salary scales of those who teach there are the same. However, the four State run colleges are, as public property, exempt from rates, while the eight privately run colleges are liable for rates. Rates are levied and collected on seven of these colleges. Because Rockwell College is attached to a secondary school, Tipperary South Riding County Council have not, to date, collected rates on the property. The Appellants submit that the payment of rates is a considerable financial burden on a college which is a non profit making institution dependant in part on voluntary subscriptions and benefactions. 

At the hearing before this Court evidence was given by a number of experts in the field of agricultural science. Dr Nicholas Bielenberg, an agricultural and farm management consultant, had carried out an inspection of Gurteen College and surveyed the work being carried out there in all its aspects. Having himself graduated in agricultural science in 1957, he was able from his own knowledge to describe the development of agricultural science in this country since the foundation of the college in 1948. At that time, he said, there was an enormous gulf between the technical and scientific knowledge available to the relatively small body of agricultural science graduates and the traditional approach of the general body of farmers. The agricultural colleges, and in particular Gurteen, had played a vital role in spreading the knowledge of agricultural science among young farmers. He distinguished between "the art of farming" which he felt most young farmers learned from their fathers and relatives, and "the science of agriculture," both theoretical and applied, which they learned from colleges such as Gurteen. The spread of this scientific knowledge had caused a revolution in Irish farming. In the report which he prepared after his inspection Dr Bielenberg stated: 

"While agriculture is defined both as a science and an art it would be true to say that there is considerably greater scientific involvement than there was fifty years ago. The art of farming has evolved over the millennia but agricultural science is probably not more than 200 years old. As far as Ireland is concerned the earliest application of agricultural science that comes to mind was the use of the Bordeaux mixture to control the potato blight fungus following the great famine. 

I would consider that the knowledge of how to milk a cow, or make a hay rick as examples of the art of farming. The traditional farmer would have known how many animals his farm could carry. He was able to distinguish between good and bad hay and would know when his stock were fit for market. He would have also known that if he added cereals to the feed he could expect more milk from his cows and a greater growth rate from his cattle. If he is growing crops he would have known to plough, sow and reap, and would know that yields could be enhanced by adding manure. 

The above however, would, in my opinion, not have been regarded as agricultural science. Examples of science would have been the knowledge that bad hay was low in digestible carbohydrates and protein and what supplementary feed was needed to obtain optimum results. Similarly the crop producer started to apply science when he measured his soil fertility, particularly for the four major elements, calcium, phosphorous, potassium, and nitrogen, and knew what fertilisers to apply to obtain optimum results. It was also necessary to apply science to use the correct herbicide or fungicide to treat different combinations of weeds and fungal diseases. I have no doubt that it would have been in the minds of the founder of Gurteen College to teach the science of agriculture as opposed to the art." 

Dr Bielenberg gave examples of pure agricultural science from the syllabus of the college, for example, the principles and knowledge of the living plant including cellular structure, processes of germination, photosynthesis, plant growth, mitosis, pollination and fertilisation; the physical and chemical composition of soils, soil profile, soil structure, soil and weather interactions; the physiology of nutrition in animals with the knowledge of the skeletal, circulatory and respiratory systems and the inheritance mechanism. 

Dr Bielenberg concluded 

"The exclusive objective of the college is the advancement of agricultural science, as opposed to the art of agriculture. It continues to exist because it is a scientific establishment and would be of little educational value without its scientific base." 

Mr Matthew Dempsey, Editor and Chief Executive of the Irish Farmers' Journal, who had also been chairman of the agricultural research ORGANISATIONS An Foras Taluntais and ACOT, also spoke of the changes in Irish agriculture since the early 1970s and described the agricultural colleges as a vital link in the transmission of the agricultural science which lay behind this development. He described how agricultural research centres carry out research, which is then further developed at a field trial level by agricultural colleges and subsequently passed on to farmers through demonstrations and field days. The education received at agricultural colleges was not mere "training" to be a farmer; it was the transmission of the science and applied science of agriculture, which could then spread throughout the farming community. 

Evidence was also given by Professor Thomas Rafferty, retired professor of agriculture in University College Cork and former Member of the European Parliament. He described research trials in wheat growing, sugar beet and other areas which had been carried out by Gurteen and stressed the importance of the field trials carried out at Gurteen and other colleges. The ordinary working farmer would not have the capacity for the detailed scientific record keeping which was carried out at Gurteen. 

Professor Rafferty's evidence was echoed by that of the Chief Cattle Adviser in Teagasc, Mr Barber, who described how research work on cattle was adopted and adapted, and then disseminated to farmers through the agricultural colleges. He described a bull beef experimental project being carried out at present in Gurteen and the detailed monitoring and record keeping required. 

Mr John Craig, the principal of the college, spoke of the history and development of the college. Prior to coming to Gurteen he had been a research worker and lecturer in agricultural science in University College Dublin. He described in some detail the modular syllabus provided at Gurteen, with the state of the art laboratory, computerised record keeping and research projects. He provided a lengthy list of research projects and scientific field trials carried out since the 1970s at the college, ranging from chemical castration of calves to transplanting of sugar beet, propagation of forestry seedlings, nuclear imaging work to assess the effect of Chernobyl and environmental protection agency work monitoring water table levels on a regular basis. Students were educated, for example, in the laboratory analysis of soil samples and the interpretation of results to ascertain soil fertility and nutrient requirements for further cropping. 

As far as the financial aspects of the college were concerned, Mr David Haslam, chartered accountant and secretary of the board of governors, who also gave evidence, analysed the sources of funding of the college from the State through Teagasc, from the European Social Fund and through voluntary subscriptions, donations and benefactions. Surplus monies made from the college's farming activities also contributed to the financing of the college. The college had received not only gifts of money but also substantial gifts of land over a period. Through a benefactor it was also enabled to purchase an additional farm over a period at a very considerable under-value. While the amount received from year to year fluctuated, it would be true to say that monies were received every year. Over the years, Mr Haslam stated that the college could not have survived without the voluntary subscriptions and gifts which it had received and continued to receive. 

Mr Frank O'Donnell, a valuation and rating consultant, gave evidence of the general structure of rating as far as agricultural colleges were concerned. He surveyed the valuation history of Gurteen from 1950 when a rateable valuation of £25 was placed on the property to 1985 when the enlarged college and land was given a valuation of £240. 

THE LAW 

Section 2 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1854 provides:- 

". . . in making out the lists or tables of valuation mentioned in the said firstly hereinbefore mentioned Act, the Commissioner of Valuation shall distinguish all hereditaments and tenements, or portions of the same, of a public nature, or used for charitable purposes, or for the purposes of science, literature and the fine arts, as specified in the Act of the sixth and seventh years of Her Majesty, chapter 36 and also such hereditaments or tenements or portions of same, so distinguished, shall so long as they shall continue to be of a public nature, and occupied for the public service, or used for purposes aforesaid, be deemed exempt from all assessment for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland and for grand jury and county rates . . . 

The Appellants in the instant case claim that Gurteen College should be exempt from rates under this section because they come within Section 1 of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843 [6 and 7 Victoria Chapter 36], which I have quoted earlier. To qualify under that section the "society" or institution must meet three criteria. Firstly, it must be "instituted for purposes of science, literature, or the fine arts exclusively, either as tenant or as owner, and occupied by it for the transaction of its' business and for carrying into effect its purposes". Secondly, it must be "supported wholly or in part by annual voluntary contributions". Thirdly, the Society "shall not, and by its laws may not, make any dividend, gift, division, or bonus in money unto or between any of its members". 

It is accepted by the Respondents that Gurteen College fully meets the third criterion -- the trustees, governors and management committee may not under the trust receive any dividend, gift, division or bonus in money. Indeed, as was forcefully pointed out by Mr Haslam in his evidence, they give a great deal of time to running and managing the college without receiving any form of remuneration. It was also accepted that all the land and buildings of Gurteen were "occupied by it for the transaction of its business and for carrying into effect its purposes". 

As far as the first criterion is concerned the Registrar of Friendly Societies contends that the college is primarily established, continued and conducted as an educational institution and education or educational purposes do not fall within the framework of Section 1 of the 1843 Act. He also refused a certificate on the basis that the society was not supported wholly or in part by annual voluntary contributions. 

While both Counsel for the Appellant and Counsel for the Respondent had clearly carried out diligent research, neither had traced any reported Irish authority on the interpretation of Section 1 of the Act of 1843 and I fully accept that none exists. There are, however, a considerable number of English cases, both from the 19th century and from more modern days, in which the section is considered. 

Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Mr O'Reilly, referred to a considerable number of cases which illustrate that the English Courts accepted a wide definition of "science and "applied science" which it was held also came within the section. Science had been held to include naval and military science and literature (Westminster City Council v Royal United Service Institution [1938] 2 All ER 545), civil engineering (Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Forrest [1890] 15 App Cas 334) law reporting, (Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v Attorney General & Ors [1972] 1 Ch 73) fuel technology (Institute of Fuel v Morley [1956] AC 245) and public administration (St Marylebone Metropolitan Borough Council v Institute of Public Administration 45 R and IT 215). Mr O'Reilly submitted that it was abundantly clear from the evidence before the Court that agriculture included both pure science and applied science. Again the evidence showed that Gurteen carried out scientific research work and disseminated the results. The college occupied a pivotal scientific role between the pure research institutes operated by Teagasc and the general body of farmers. 

Senior Counsel for the Respondent, Mr Finlay, accepted that agriculture was a science, but submitted that the college was an educational, not a scientific, institution. The core activity at Gurteen was the training of young persons to be good farmers. 

In addition he submitted that under the terms of the trust the college could not be said to be devoted exclusively to science. Paragraph 3 of the schedule of the trust stated: 

"That the trustees shall henceforth permit the said lands and premises and all other premises which may from time to time be erected thereon to be used for the purposes of an agricultural college under the control of the conference of the Methodist Church in Ireland for the instruction of members of the Methodist Church in Ireland and such other persons as the conference may deem fit in the principles of the Christian religion and in the subjects of agriculture, dairying, poultry keeping, horticulture and domestic science and in such other subjects as may from time to time be required . . .". 

In their original application to the Registrar of Friendly Societies the trustees had pointed out that there was no longer any religious instruction in the college. There were designated chaplains from the Roman Catholic, Methodist and Anglican (Church of Ireland) churches who occasionally visited the college in the context of pastoral work, but their involvement was much less than that of chaplains in the established universities in the State. Students were eligible to attend without discrimination as to gender or as to religion, and in fact in the year 1994 only two of the students were members of the Methodist church, while 42 were Roman Catholic and 37 Church of Ireland. 

The learned Circuit Court judge had held that any religious aspect of the college was merely ancillary to the main activities of the college and could, under a number of the English authorities, be disregarded. Mr Finlay however, relied on the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Battersea Borough Council v British Iron and Steel Research Association 41 R and IT 567. In that case the Court of Appeal held that the question whether a particular society was instituted for the purposes of science exclusively must be determined by reference to the purposes of the society as defined by its constitution rather than the purposes it might actually have pursued in practice, though the possibility in an appropriate case of recourse to the evidence of activities was not excluded; that a society could not so qualify if it were authorised by its laws to pursue alien purposes whether it had in fact pursued them or not. On that authority the fact that there was in practice no "instruction in the principles of the Christian religion" in Gurteen was irrelevant. If the trust deed provided for religious instruction the institution could not be exclusively devoted to science. 

As far as the second issue was concerned Senior Counsel for the Appellant relied on the evidence of Mr Haslam with regard to the gifts of money and of land, together with legacies received over the years by the college. He also stressed the benefit in kind of the gratuitous work contributed by the trustees, the governors and the management committee. Mr O'Reilly also drew attention to a line of English cases stemming from Hornsey School of Art v Edmonton Union 94 LTR 203 which had held that Govermnent and local authority grants to institutions are "voluntary annual subscriptions" within the Act of 1843. If this line of authority were to be accepted both the Teagasc grants and the European Social Fund funding would be voluntary annual subscriptions. 

Mr Finlay for the Respondent stressed that the voluntary contributions to the college as shown in the accounts varied greatly from year to year and did not form any substantial part of the regular income of the college. He also pointed out that in the more modern English cases it was no longer held that Government grants came within the definition of annual voluntary subscriptions. 

CONCLUSION 

On the evidence before the Court I have no difficulty in accepting that agriculture is a science both in its pure and in its applied form. I fully accept the distinction made by Dr Bielenberg between "the art of farming" and "the science of agriculture". I also have no doubt that a considerable part of the activities carried out at Gurteen could be described as purely scientific; Mr Craig's list of research projects, field trials and experiments is clear evidence of that. 

The real issue is whether an institution the core activity of which is the dissemination of science through teaching is, as held by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, merely an educational institution, or, as argued by the Appellants, an institute for the purposes of science exclusively. 

On the authorities it is clear that the fact that an institute is a teaching institute does not of itself take it out of the definition in Section 1 of the Act of 1843. 

In British Launderers' Research Association v Borough of Hendon Rating Authority [1949] 1 KB 462 Lord Justice Denning (as he then was) (at page 468) sums up the matter thus: 

"More difficulty arises, however, in saying what are 'the purposes of science'. Science includes, of course, not only pure or abstract science, such as pure mathematics, but also the applied sciences, such as electricity or engineering; and the purposes of science include not only the advancement of knowledge by research work, but also the dissemination of it by lectures or teaching or writing Take the Department of Engineering at Cambridge. It is undoubtedly instituted for the purposes of science exclusively; and although it undertakes the training of students, that is merely incidental to the purposes of science." 

Lord Justice Denning goes on to refer to the case of Royal College of Music v Vestry of St Margaret's [1898] 1 QB 304. This case I found most helpful in considering the interpretation of the section. It deals, of course, with "fine art" rather than science, but the principles involved are the same. As is stated in the headnote 

"The Royal College of Music was created and incorporated by Royal Charter, for the advancement of the art of music by means of a teaching and examining body conferring degrees and certificates of proficiency, for the promotion and supervision of musical instruction conducive to the cultivation and dissemination of the art of music and generally for the encouragement and promotion of the cultivation of music as an art." 

In its Charter the purposes of the college were set out as follows 

"The purposes for which the corporation is founded are first, the advancement of the art of music by means of a central teaching and examining body, charged with the duty of providing musical instruction of the highest class, and of rewarding with academical degrees and certificates of proficiency and otherwise persons, whether educated or not at the college, who on examination may prove themselves worthy of such distinctions and evidence of attainment and secondly, the promotion and supervision of such musical instruction, in schools and elsewhere, as may be thought most conducive to the cultivation and dissemination of the art of music in the United Kingdom; and, lastly, generally, the encouragement and promotion of the cultivation of music as an art throughout our dominions." 

In his judgment Hawkins J (at page 313) states: 

"Assuming the objects of the Charter, as described in the Charter itself to be fully carried out, could it be seriously doubted that the society was instituted for the purposes of the higher art of music exclusively? What is there in the Charter which militates against that view? The building was, and is, absolutely necessary for the transaction of the business of the institution, and for the accommodation of the teachers and the pupils. Without such tuition as is provided for in the Charter, it would be impossible to accomplish the objects of it. The fees received from pupils and candidates are reasonably received from those who can afford to pay them, but they are all applied exclusively to the declared purposes of the college. For those who are poor and unable to pay necessary maintenance is provided. The larger the number of apt pupils, whether rich or poor, receiving tuition at the college, the more will musical high art be disseminated throughout the Empire; the more encouragement to those who strive to acquire distinction in such art, the greater the prospect of the advancement of it. The building, and the funds, whether derived partly or entirely from voluntary subscriptions, are entirely and wholly applied to the objects of the Charter, without any surplus profit to the corporation, and no member of the college derives any benefit from such funds." 

The judgment of Hawkins J was upheld in the Court of Appeal. Many years later another challenge was made to the exempt status of the Royal College of Music (Cane v Royal College of Music [1961] 2 All ER 12. In this case the challenge was to the second leg of the section, the voluntary subscription test, but in a lengthy and detailed judgment no suggestion is made that because the main work of the college was educational it did not devote itself "exclusively" to fine art. 

With regard to Gurteen, I have before me the evidence of several distinguished agricultural scientists all of whom emphasise the importance of the college both in research and in the dissemination of agricultural science. From the correspondence it does not seem to me that these authorities regarding educational/scientific institutions were available to the Respondent when making his original decision. 

A further matter, which was not mentioned by either Counsel but seems to me to be of some importance, is that Gurteen College is not within the ambit of the Department of Education. Purely educational institutions in this State -- national schools, secondary schools, third level institutions -- operate to a greater or lesser extent under the aegis of the Department of Education. It is the Department of Education that funds them, that (if necessary) provides syllabi and examinations, pays teachers, pays capitation grants and so on. 

This is emphatically not the case with Gurteen. Gurteen comes under the aegis of Teagasc, which was established pursuant to the Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Act, 1988. The principle functions of Teagasc under that Act are 

(a) to provide or procure the provision of educational, training and advisory services in agriculture as may be specified by the Minister 

(b) to obtain and make available to the agricultural industry the scientific and practical information in relation to agriculture acquired by it and 

(c) to undertake, promote, encourage, assist, co-ordinate, facilitate and review agricultural research and development . . . 

The modular courses and syllabi used at Gurteen are provided by Teagasc. The teachers' salaries are largely paid by Teagasc, as are capitation grants, repair and maintenance grants and capital grants. 

In my view, the fact that Gurteen College comes so thoroughly within the ambit of the State body which deals with agricultural research and the dissemination of agricultural science, rather than being controlled by the Department of Education, reinforces the view that it is an institute devoted exclusively to agricultural science and not, as held by the Respondent, primarily an educational institution. 

With regard to the issue of religious instruction, I accept that the Battersea case lays great stress on the memorandum and articles of association of the company in that case. Even in that case, however, Jenkins J in his judgment allows that 

The document defining a society's purposes must no doubt be construed in the light of surrounding circumstances, and I do not exclude the possibility, in an appropriate case, of recourse to evidence as to the actual activities of the society as an aid to construction." 

While, of course, a judgment of the English Court of Appeal must be persuasive, I feel that the Battersea case goes much further than many of the earlier English cases. It can also be distinguished from the instant case in that it dealt with a company limited by guarantee and Jenkins J himself pointed out (at page 16) "I think this applies with particular force where, as here, the society concerned is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, with the memorandum of association formally stating, as required by that Act, the objects for which it is established 

Looking at the authorities as a whole and given that I am not bound by the Battersea case, I prefer to approach the matter by looking at the factual evidence of the present purposes and activities of the college, and I would agree here with the opinion of the learned Circuit Court judge that any form of religious involvement which takes place is purely ancillary to the other activities of the college. 

Thus I conclude that Gurteen College comes within the Act of 1843 in that it is a society instituted for the purposes of science exclusively and that its land, houses and buildings are used for the transaction of its business and for the carrying into effect of its purposes. 

There remains the question as to whether this society is supported wholly or in part by annual voluntary contributions. This aspect of the Act of 1843 is most comprehensively considered in the second Royal College of Music case -- Cane v Royal College of Music [1961] 2 All ER 12. In that case the Lands Tribunal had decided that the college was not supported by annual voluntary contributions, because the proportion of the college's income so derived was insignificant (under 2%). The Court of Appeal held that the college was still entitled to exemption from rates. The Court considered that the proportion of total income of the college constituted by annual voluntary contributions was substantially higher than the Tribunal had found and not so small as to be negligible or derisory; the question should not be decided as a matter of percentages. It was proper to ascertain the approximate total income of the college and the total amount arising from annual voluntary contributions, but regard should be had to such factors as that the college was provided by benefaction and its purposes were within the spirit and intention of Section 1 of the Scientific Societies' Act, 1843. The Court also held that in determining whether contributions were annual they should be viewed from the point of view of the recipient and a number of payments such as unconditional legacies, conditional legacies and annual payments from trust funds, scholarships and prizes, and gifts in kind should be included when calculating annual voluntary subscriptions. However, the Court of Appeal in this case followed the Battersea case in holding that annual Government grants could not be held to be annual voluntary subscriptions. 

Although in the 19th century in England it was reasonable enough to hold that what were basically grants from the Royal Purse were annual voluntary subscriptions I would have to agree that in this day and age it would not be correct to regard Government grants as annual voluntary subscriptions and I cannot accept that in the case of Gurteen the Teagasc grants and the ESF finding are annual voluntary subscriptions. Counsel for the Respondent is correct in pointing out that in some years the donations and bequests have fallen to a very low proportion of the college's income. Nevertheless taking the years 1983 to 1997 together the college's total income was £6,348,712 and of this £479,545 or roughly 8% came from donations and bequests. This does not in fact include scholarships or the benefit in kind represented by the gratuitous work of the trustees, governors and management committee. 

While it is clear that not a large proportion of the college's income comes from voluntary subscriptions it is clear that from the beginning the college has been seen to some degree as a charitable institution and has benefited in particular from gifts of land whether given directly or sold to the college at very much of an undervalue. It is largely been because of gifts of this kind that the college has grown from its very small beginnings to the sizeable institution which it is today. It seems to me that the level of voluntary subscriptions are sufficient to bring it within the Act of 1843. On this appeal therefore, I hold in favour of the Appellants and overturn the decision of the Registrar of Friendly Societies not to issue the relevant certificate that Gurteen College comes within the scope of Section 1 of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843. 

While I have said that there is no reported Irish decision on the interpretation of the relevant section I am encouraged in my decision by a report in the Irish Independent of 19 December, 1997 of a decision in the Circuit Court by His Honour Judge Raymond Groarke who granted the Transport Museum Society of Ireland a certificate exempting it from paying local authority rates in what was considered to be the first judicial interpretation by an Irish Court of the Scientific Societies Act, Section 1. 

I should also like to add a general comment. The legislation which covers exemption from rating -- and indeed the legislation which covers valuation generally -- in this country is both complex and arcane. It is based on a number of 19th century statutes which have never been codified or reformed. It is pointed out by the learned Mr Justice Ronan Keane in his book The Law of Local Government in the Republic of Ireland (at page 289) that "The subject of exemption from rating is one of considerable difficulty and obscurity even by the standards of our law of local government." The valuation code itself has been criticised by the Courts on a number of occasions as being in need of repeal, re-enactment and modernisation. In Pfizer Chemical Corporation v Commissioner of Valuation (unreported High Court, Costello P 9 May, 1989) the learned judge was critical of the over complicated and convoluted nature of the Valuation Acts and stated that he saw no reason why these should not have been long since repealed and re-enacted in a more intelligible form. 

The abolition, after much agitation by farmers, of the agricultural rates system, together with the abolition of rates on ordinary domestic dwellings, may well have served to divert public attention from the fact that the rating system still applies in the commercial world and to many other persons and bodies. I am not of course, criticising the principle that contribution should be made to pay for the services provided by local authorities. My criticism is confined to the failure of the legislature to update, codify, simplify and reform the arcane and complex system of 19th century laws which govern our system of valuation and rating. The very fact that the system continues to be described as "poor law valuation" is indicative of its outdated origins. The people of this country have recently passed a referendum in regard to some aspects of the reform of local government; and the present Minister for the Environment has made a number of statements forecasting local government reform. It is to be hoped that the legislature and the executive will press ahead with reform of the legislation which now governs this important aspect of local government finance. 

DISPOSITION