Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Rating - From: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 27 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 The Queen v The Inhabitants of St Marylebone; 29-May-1850 - [1850] EngR 590; (1850) 15 QB 399; (1850) 117 ER 510
 
William Roberts And Others v The Overseers Of Aylesbury [1853] EngR 99; (1853) 1 El & Bl 423; (1853) 118 ER 495
15 Jan 1853


Rating
Appellants were rated to the relief of the poor, on ‘the Market House, with the grounds belonging thereto, used and occupied for the tolls of the markets and fairs.’’ It was admitted that under this description they were in fact rated not only for the Market House, but also for the tolls on merchandize sold in the market, and for payments made to the lord and his lessees far goods not sold but exposed for sale on stalls and otherwise; which payments from time immemorial, were charged according to the situation of the stalls and other circumstancee, according to the discretion of the lord arid his lessees; and also for payments made for leave to use temporary theatres, and shows. None of the stalls, &e. were in any way annexed to the soil. The lord was owner of the soil of the market. The tolls were from time immemorial received in the Market House. The appellants were lessees for a term of years under the lord. On a case stating the above facts: Held, that the tolls on goods sold were not the subject of a rate, and that the fact that such tolls were paid in the Market House made no difference: but that the other payments were in the nature of compensation for the use of the soil, and that they and the Market House were properly rated.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 The Vestryman of The Parish of St Marylebone In Middlesex v The Zoological Society Of London; 31-May-1854 - [1854] EngR 566; (1854) 3 El & Bl 807; (1854) 118 ER 1343
 
The Electric Telegraph Company v The Overseers Of The Poor Of The Township Of Salford [1855] EngR 552; (1855) 11 Exch 181; (1855) 156 ER 795
6 Jun 1855


Rating
Company liable for rating on wires and posts along line of railway despite possibility that they may have to be removed.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Thomas Houghton Hodgson v The Local Board Of Health For The District Of Carlisle [1857] EngR 709; (1857) 8 El and Bl 116; (1857) 120 ER 43
26 Jun 1857


Rating
Real property within the district of a local Board of health cannot be assessed to a district rate, unless there be some person having such an occupation as would make him liable to the poor rate in respect thereof.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The Taff Vale Railway Company v The Local Board Of Health For The District Of Cardiff [1857] EngR 898; (1857) 8 El and Bl 535; (1857) 120 ER 200
18 Nov 1857


Rating
The maintenance of the highways withiti the district of a local board of health must be provided for by a district rate, and not by a highway rate, whether the district be or be not conterminous with an ancient parochial division.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Forrest v Overseers of Greenwich [1858] XXI Victoria 890; [1858] EngR 249; (1858) 8 El & Bl 890; (1858) 120 ER 332
1858

Lord Campbell
Land, Rating
The court was asked whether a landing stage by a river was part of the land. F. moored a barge in the Thames between high and low water mark : the moorings wera stationary, in the bed of the river; and the barge floated at high water and grounded at low water on the posts in the bed of the Thames by which it was moored, and which were in the parish of G. The barge was connected by a chain with stairs on the land, the soil of which was not the property or in the occupation of A, and which was at that point a common highway to the Thames. Moveable planks were laid from the shore on to the barge, and thence to another barge moored farther out in the Thames, and which always floated. By this means a pier was constructed which was permanently kept there and used for embarking in steam boats and landing from them ; and F, was remunerated by the parties so using ; and he had the sole controul of the pier. Held that he was rateable to the poor rate for G, as occupier of the land in the bed of the river.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v The Justices of Kingston Upon Thames And Richard Wedd [1858] EngR 677; (1858) El Bl & El 259; (1858) 120 ER 505
7 May 1858


Rating

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v The Justices of Kingston Upon Thames And Edward Philips [1858] EngR 676; (1858) El Bl & El 256; (1858) 120 ER 503
7 May 1858


Rating

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Mersey Docks And Harbour Board v Jones And Others, Churchwardens And Overseers Of The Poor Of The Parish Of Liverpool [1860] EngR 263; (1860) 8 CB NS 114; (1860) 144 ER 1108
1860

Erle CJ
Rating, Transport
By a series of local acts, the trustees of certain public docks were impowered to take certain rates and tolls from vessels entering therein, the proceeds to be applied to the repair and maintenance of the docks and harbour; and, if the amount raised should be more than sufticient for that purpose, then the rates and tolls were to be lowered.-By subsequent acts, the trustees were impowered to raise money for building additional warehouses, and to levy rates for payment of the expenses of carrying the acts into effect, paying interest, and maintaining the buildings so erected ; but such additional warehouses were to be rateable to the poor as in the case of premises of which there was a beneficial occupation. Held: In deference to the decision of the court of Queen’s Bench (between the same parties) upon a case stated hy the sessions in 1827 (the King v. the Inhabitants of Liverpool , 7, B. & C. 61, 9 D. & R. 780), and the legislative declaration as to the rateability of the additional buildings erected under the authority of the later Acts, -that the trustees were not rateable in respect of the old docks, &c.--The court has no power hostilely to vary a, special case which has been stated by consent, for the purpose of raising a different question from that which the parties originally contemplated.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Windsor v Jeffery [1866] EngR 164; (1866) 6 B & S 628; (1866) 122 ER 1327
6 Jun 1866


Rating

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Allan v Liverpool Overseers; 1874 - (1874) LR 9 QB 180

 
 Smith v Seghill Overseers; 1875 - (1875) LR 10 QB 422; 44 LJMC 114; 32 LT 859; 40 JP 228; 23 WR 745
 
Cory v Bristow [1877] 2 AC 262
1877
HL
Lord Cairns LC
Rating
The owner of a vessel used for commercial purposes while fixed in position on a long-term basis over moorings on the riverbed could for rating purposes be treated as the occupier of those moorings and the part of the riverbed in which they were situated. The moorings themselves were treated as rateable, the vessel remained a chattel. The court described the Thames Conservators: "They are made [by statute] the guardians, as it were, of the navigation of the Thames and the protectors of the bed and soil of the Thames for the purposes of the navigation. They have certain powers - very large powers - given to them for the protection of navigation".
1 Citers



 
 Corey v Bristow; HL 1877 - (1877) 2 App Cas 262

 
 Regina v St Pancras Assessment Committee; 1877 - [1877] 2 QBD 581
 
Smith and Son v Lambeth Assessment Committee (1882) 9 QBD 585
1882


Rating
The law presumes that only one person shall be liable to pay rates on a property at any one time.
1 Citers


 
In re Watson, Kipling and Co (1883) 23 Ch D 500
1883
ChD
Kay J
Insolvency, Rating
An assessment for rates had been made after the liquidation of the company upon property occupied by the company. The court rejected the submission of counsel for the rating authority that- "where a liability is incurred during the winding-up, that liability ought to be paid in full, and therefore these rates ought to be paid in full because they were made during the winding-up." It was not enough that the company was in rateable occupation. It must have retained occupation for the benefit of the estate.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 In re International Marine Hydropathic Co; CA 1884 - (1884) 28 Ch D 470

 
 In re National Arms and Ammunition Co; CA 1885 - (1885) 28 Ch D 474
 
Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh (1890) 17 R 839
1890

Lord Trayner, Lord Wellwood
Rating
(Lands Valuation Appeal Court) The court considered the rating applicable where several banks retained nearby properties for the occupation of its staff. There were three categories of residential premises: (i) dwellings which were in buildings separate from the bank's offices; (ii) dwellings which were under the same roof as the commercial offices with internal communication between them; and (iii) dwellings which were under the same roof but with no internal communication between them, or none that was in use. Held: In case (i) the dwellings fell to be valued separately while those in cases (ii) and (iii) were unum quid with the commercial offices. Lord Wellwood agreed with him on cases (i) and (ii), but not on case (iii) which he would have directed to be separately valued. However, the underlying principle applied by both judges was the same. They applied the geographical principle, distinguishing cases where the various bank buildings formed a continuous territorial block from cases where they did not. In those cases where the different buildings did not form a continuous territorial block, they could be treated as unum quid only where there was a necessary functional connection between them.
Lord Trayner said: "In the case of the Commercial Bank I think the assessor has gone wrong in including the messengers' houses as part of the bank. These houses form no part of the bank buildings; they are separate houses in the adjoining street, no doubt sufficiently near to the bank to be convenient and suitable for the bank servants, but still no part of the bank buildings, and therefore no part of the unum quid. The assessor in support of the view he has adopted referred to the case of M'Jannet, 10 R 32, but I do not think that that case has any application here. It was decided in that case that the conservatory, stables, and outhouses connected with a dwelling-house were not to be separately valued, but were to be regarded and valued as a unum quid. I agree entirely with that decision. The different parts of the subject to be valued lay together, and were within the one enclosure; they were the different parts which together went to make up the establishment. But although the stables, for example, were held in that case to be part of the residence and to be so valued, it does not follow that stables are in every case to be valued as part of the residence to which they are an accessory. The stables of a gentleman in town are as much a convenience or accessory to his town residence as they are in the case of a country house. They are not, however, valued along with the town residence, although situated in the adjoining street or mews. They are not so connected - as they were in the case of a country mansion or residence - as to make it impossible or difficult to let them separately. In the same way the Commercial Bank could not well retain their bank premises, and let the part thereof devoted to official residence, but they could quite well and conveniently let the messengers' houses in the street to persons entirely unconnected with the bank. I think these houses therefore should be separately entered and valued in the Valuation-roll."
Lord Wellwood divided the residential buildings into three categories: "First - Those which are entirely detached from the bank buildings, as in the case of the messengers' houses of the Commercial Bank of Scotland. I agree with Lord Trayner that the yearly value of those houses should be separately entered in the roll.
Second -The houses which form part of the main building, but have no internal communication with the business premises. I am of opinion that the yearly value of those dwelling-houses also should be separately entered. The fact that they form part of the same building with the business premises is not I think in this question material, and was not much relied on by the respondent. Structurally they are self-contained premises, and could be let separately if this were desired. The respondent relied mainly upon the consideration that the houses form necessary adjuncts to the bank premises, and together with them fell to be valued as a unum quid.
Dwelling-houses for bank officials connected with the bank premises are no doubt usual and useful additions to banking premises, but it is not indispensable that they should form part of the bank buildings, as is shewn in the case of the messengers' houses of the Commercial Bank of Scotland. If, as is sometimes the case, it did not suit any of the officials to reside in the dwelling-houses, they could be let to a tenant with no more danger to the bank than if they were under a different roof. The case seems to me to be precisely the same as that with which we are familiar of the lower flat of a dwelling-house being converted into a shop with a separate entrance. The upper flats may or may not be occupied by the shopkeeper himself as a dwelling-house, but I take it that in any case the dwelling-house and the shop are valued separately.
Third - Dwelling-houses which are connected by internal communication with the business premises. In regard to those I have more doubt. 'In their actual state' they are at present connected with the business premises by an internal door of communication, which is used not merely as a convenient short cut by the occupant of the dwelling-house, but also by other bank officials and servants for the purpose of locking the outer door of the bank and other purposes. This means of communication could be easily cut off by building up or even locking the door. But that is not the present state of matters, and the question being doubtful, I am not prepared to differ from the opinion of Lord Trayner and the Valuation Committee as to those dwelling-houses."
1 Citers


 
Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh (1891) 18 R 936
1891

Lord Traynor, Lord Kyllachy
Rating
(Lands Valuation Appeal Court) The Court considered the appropriate entry for property contiguous with a bank, but with no interconnection, the house being held for the occupation of bank employees. Held: Lord Wellwood repeated his view that they fell to be separately valued.
Lord Kyllachy, said: "The test I think here is whether the houses in question are capable, not merely physically but, all conditions being considered, of being separately let, and having a separate rent or value attached to them. As regards the house occupied by the messenger, and which has no internal communication with the rest of the bank, I agree with the opinion of Lord Wellwood at the last court. I see no reason, at least none appears in the case, why, if the bank chose, this house should not be separately let to a suitable tenant, or assigned by way of pension to an old servant, or otherwise dealt with as a separate and independent dwelling.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Assessment Committee of St Mary Abbotts, Kensington [1891] 1 QB 378
1891
CA

Rating, Litigation Practice
A householder, wishing to object to the valuation listed for his property before the Committee sought to appear by his agent. Held: He did not need to appear in person before the committee but could appoint another person to do so on his behalf. At common law a person who has a right to appear before a statutory Tribunal may appear by an agent, unless the statute says. Otherwise. the existence of a judicial function did not necessarily make the body to which it was entrusted “a court of law”; nor did it necessarily attract “the privileges” enjoyed by a court in law.

 
Holywell Union v Halkin District Mines DrainageCo [1895] AC 117
1895
HL
Lord Herschell LC, Lord Davey
Rating
The landowner had granted to a drainage company an exclusive right of drainage though a tunnel and a watercourse in his land, with the right of placing works in the tunnel and the watercourse and of making other tunnels in connection therewith, reserving to himself mineral and other rights. The Court of Appeal had held that the company had no more than an easement, and was not in rateable occupation of anything. Held: The appeal was allowed. The company was in occupation of the tunnel and watercourse for the purposes of and in connection with the enjoyment of the easement, and had the exclusive use of them for the purposes of drainage, the rights reserved to the landowner being subordinate to those granted to the company.
Answering the company's submission that occupation, to be rateable, had to be exclusive, and that the rights reserved by the landowner showed that the company did not have exclusive occupation, Lord Herschell LC said: "It was strongly contended, on behalf of the respondents, that they could not be liable to be rated, inasmuch as they were not in exclusive occupation. There are many cases where two persons may, without impropriety, be said to occupy the same land, and the question has sometimes arisen which of them is rateable. Where a person already in possession has given to another possession of a part of his premises, if that possession be not exclusive he does not cease to be liable to the rate, nor does the other become so. A familiar illustration of this occurs in the case of a landlord and his lodger. Both are, in a sense, in occupation, but the occupation of the landlord is paramount, that of the lodger subordinate."
Lord Davey said: "But then it is said that the occupation is not exclusive, inasmuch as the Duke of Westminster has reserved certain rights to himself and his licensees over the tunnels and water-course, and in pursuance of such reserved rights the Halkyn Mining Company have laid a tramway along one of the tunnels and have placed ventilating pipes there. Two questions arise: What is meant by exclusive occupation when used in connection with the subject of rating? And, What are the conditions subject to which the Duke exercises his reserved rights? It is clear that exclusive occupation does not mean that nobody else has any rights in the premises. The familiar case of landlord and lodger is an illustration. The cases shew that if a person has only a subordinate occupation subject at all times to the control and regulation of another, then that person has not occupation in the strict sense for the purposes of rating, but the rateable occupation remains in the other, who has the right of regulation and control."
1 Citers



 
 In re Blazer Fire Lighter Ltd; 1895 - [1895] 1 Ch 402

 
 Re Marriage Neave and Co; CA 1896 - [1896] 2 Ch 633

 
 Lambeth Overseers v London County Council; HL 1897 - [1897] AC 625
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.