Branwood, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 26 Apr 2013

This case concerns a Local Council Tax Support scheme and adherence by a local council to the duty to consult and the public sector equality duty.

Haddon-Cave J
[2013] EWHC 1024 (Admin)
Bailii

Local Government, Rating

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523761

Corkish (Listing Officer) v Wright and Another: Admn 11 Feb 2014

Statutory appeal by the Appellant listing officer against the decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England. The Tribunal allowed an appeal from the LO’s decision that the annex at the Respondents’ property at Basingstoke, Hampshire was a self-contained unit, so as to be amenable to a separate charge for council tax.

Popplewell J
[2014] EWHC 237 (Admin)
Bailii

Rating

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521137

Kaye v South Oxfordshire District Council and Another: ChD 6 Dec 2013

‘billing authorities have been in receipt of advice that the arrears of business rates outstanding for the purposes of insolvency are to be treated in the same way as arrears of council tax, and that, in both cases, the debt provable in the insolvency is that due up to the date of the insolvency event, unless the debtor has previously defaulted, in which case it is the debt for the whole of the relevant financial year, that is considered to be due, and to become payable and provable in the insolvency. It is the correctness of that view which falls for decision by this court.’

Hidge QC HHJ
[2013] EWHC 4165 (Ch), [2014] BCC 143, [2014] BPIR 416, [2014] Bus LR 597, [2014] 2 All ER 1019
Bailii

Insolvency, Rating

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520880

GPS (Great Britain) Ltd v Bird (VO): UTLC 21 Nov 2013

UTLC RATING – valuation – 2005 list – material change of circumstances – England’s most valuable out of town retail park 4.3 miles from Leicester town centre – existing shopping centre in town centre more than doubled in size – whether opening of enlarged shopping centre reduced rental values at out of town centre – held that it did – appeals allowed – RVs reduced by 10%

N J Rose FRICS and P D McCrea FRICS
[2013] UKUT 527 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518806

Kendrick v Mayday Optical Co Ltd: UTLC 12 Nov 2013

UTLC RATING – proposal to alter the 2010 non-domestic rating list – proposal containing error in its statement of annual rent – Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 – whether proposal validly made – whether (if not validly made) the valuation officer entitled to assert the invalidity

Judge Huskinson
[2013] UKUT 548 (LC)
Bailii
Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518807

Ricketts (Valuation Officer) v Cyxtera Technology UK Ltd: UTLC 28 Oct 2021

RATING – OCCUPATION – extent of hereditament – ‘white space’ in a data hall, whether capable of beneficial occupation – rule 38(7), Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 – late change of case by the Valuation Officer

[2021] UKUT 265 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.669249

Lidl (UK) Gmbh v Ryder (Valuation Officer): UTLC 6 Aug 2013

UTLC RATING – valuation – 2010 list – second generation supermarket comprising part of a larger food store originally purpose built to suit requirements of a different operator – comparables – whether to be valued by reference to all stores occupied by the ratepayer or second generation stores only – effect on value of catchment and competition – appeal allowed – RV reduced from andpound;210,000 to andpound;182,000

[2013] UKUT 348 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517588

Holden Vale (Conference Centre) Ltd v Whitehead (Valuation Officer): UTLC 16 May 2013

UTLC RATING – hereditament – valuation of hotel and conference centre – 2005 Rating List – assessment based upon scheme agreed with British Hospitality Association – whether full Receipts and Expenditure method of assessment appropriate in light of ‘exceptional circumstances’ – held circumstances not exceptional – appeal dismissed

[2013] UKUT 237 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512303

The Collection (Management) Limited v Jackson (Valuation Officer): UTLC 16 May 2013

UTLC RATING – non-domestic hereditament – concierge room in development of 15 houses – whether domestic property – Local Government Finance Act 1988 s.66(1) – held concierge room lay within the curtilage of property used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation and was an ‘other appurtenance’ – domestic property

[2013] UKUT 166 (LC)
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988 66(1)
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512301

Sykes (VO) v Great Bear Distribution Ltd: UTLC 31 Jul 2020

RATING – PROCEDURE – power of VTE to order temporary alteration to rating list when giving effect to a proposal – whether exercisable when proposal is for deletion – whether alteration of assessment a matter ancillary to temporary deletion – scope of proposal – regulation 38, Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 – appeal dismissed

[2020] UKUT 238 (LC)
Bailii
Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.653286

Tuplin (Valuation Officer) v Focus (DIY) Ltd: UTLC 1 Jul 2009

UTLC RATING – proposal – validity – agreed alteration taking effect at beginning of financial year in which proposal made – further proposal made referring to VT decision – object to achieve earlier effective date for alteration – whether proposal valid – held that it was – Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 regs 4A, 5A, 7 and 13A.

[2009] UKUT 118 (LC)
Bailii
Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993
England and Wales

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.373420

Zhou v Osborne (Valuation Officer): LT 19 Aug 2008

LT RATING – composite hereditament – home working from ground floor front room – practice of Chinese medicine (acupuncture and herbalism) – window signage – advertisements – fitting out of room – whether medical practice commenced – appeal allowed – Local Government Finance Act 1988, s66(1)(a).

[2008] EWLands RA – 56 – 2007
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988 66(1)(a)
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.278622

Gallagher (Valuation Officer) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: HL 30 Jul 2008

The House considered whether certain properties of the Church were subject to non-domestic rating. Various buildings were on the land, and the officer denied that some fell within the exemptions, and in particular whether the Temple itself was a public place of religious worship, since it was not open to the public, or even to all church members.
Held: The church’s appeal failed. Though the law had altered since the Henning case, the relevant words had not, and that decision stood. The sacredness of the building and of the functions that are performed there are decisive and the Temple could not be described as a church hall. Only one of the buildings satisfied the requirements for exemption. As a matter of law, a place of ‘public religious worship’ must be one that is open to the general public.
Lord Scott said: ‘the grant of rating relief to premises for religious services that are open to the public and the withholding of that relief from premises for religious services which take place behind closed doors through which only a select few may pass is well justifiable and within the margin of appreciation available to individual signatory states. First, states may justifiably take the view that the practice of religion is beneficial both to the individuals who practise it as well as to the community of whom the individuals form part, and that, therefore, relief from rating for premises where religious worship takes place is in the public interest. But, second, states may also recognise that, although religion may be beneficial both to individuals and to the community, it is capable also of being divisive and, sometimes, of becoming dangerously so. No one who lives in a country such as ours, with a community of diverse ethnic and racial origins and of diverse cultures and religions, can be unaware of this. Religion can bind communities together; but it can also emphasise their differences. In these circumstances secrecy in religious practices provides the soil in which suspicions and unfounded prejudices can take root and grow; openness in religious practices, on the other hand, can dispel suspicions and contradict prejudices.’

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Carswell, Lord Mance
[2008] UKHL 56, Times 07-Aug-2008, [2008] 1 WLR 1852, [2008] 4 All ER 640, [2008] NPC 92, [2008] HRLR 46, [2008] RA 317, [2008] 2 P and CR DG25
Bailii, HL
Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sch5 p11, Toleration Act 1688, Roman Catholic Relief Act 1791, Places of Religious Worship Act 1812, Poor Rate Exemption Act 1833
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCole v Police Constable 443A 1937
A ‘place of public religious worship’ required only ‘congregational worship’, that is to say, the assembly of a congregation whose association is solely for the purpose of joining in worship and not because they have private links such as being . .
CitedChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (Valuation Officer) HL 1964
The House was asked whether the Mormon Temple at Godstone was exempt from rates as a ‘place of public religious worship’.
Held: The words could not apply to places used for religious worship from which the public was excluded.
Lord Pearce . .
CitedGilmour v Coats HL 1949
Prayers Alone did not make Convent Charitable
A trust to apply the income of a fund for all or any of the purposes of a community of Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns living in seclusion and spending their lives in prayer, contemplation and penance, was not charitable because it could not be shown . .
CitedBarras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co HL 17-Mar-1933
The court looked at the inference that a statute’s draughtsman could be assumed when using a phrase to rely on a known interpretation of that phrase.
Viscount Buckmaster said: ‘It has long been a well established principle to be applied in the . .
CitedRegina v Chard HL 1983
The defendant appealed his conviction which had been obtained but based upon the evidence of a ‘super-grass’. His appeal failed, but the witness then withdrew his evidence. The matter was referred back to the court under the section, which then . .
CitedChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (Valuation Officer) CA 1962
The court was asked whether a Mormon Temple was a public place of worship. Lord Denning MR rejected an argument that the Temple was merely a church hall: ‘The short answer is that this temple is not a church hall, chapel hall nor a similar building. . .
CitedThlimmenos v Greece ECHR 6-Apr-2000
(Grand Chamber) The application of a rule that a felon could not become a chartered accountant infringed the rights under article 14, taken in conjunction with article 9, of a pacifist convicted of the felony of refusing to perform military service. . .
CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
CitedDH v Czech Repiublic ECHR 7-Feb-2006
The claimants, 18 Roma children complained, saying that they had automatically been placed in schools for children with special needs by virtue of their racial origin. . .
CitedLondon Corporation v Cusack-Smith HL 1955
The House considered a purchase notice under section 19(1), Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which turned on the second limb of the definition of ‘owner’ because the land in question was not let at a rack rent. Lord Reid considered a chain of . .
Appeal fromGallagher v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints CA 24-Nov-2006
. .
CitedBroxtowe Borough Council v Birch CA 1983
A sect of Christians, the Exclusive Brethren set up one building with a notice declaring that the word of god would be preached on Sundays. This was interpreted as that it was open for public worship and exempt from rating. A second building was . .
CitedW and JB Eastwood Ltd v Herrod (VO) HL 1971
The House was asked whether buildings used for producing broiler chickens were agricultural buildings. They would be exempt had it been possible to say that they were used ‘solely’ in connection with the agricultural operations on the land together . .
CitedTrustees of West London Methodist Mission v Holborn Borough Council 1958
. .

Cited by:
CitedThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Mar-2014
latterdayECHR0314
The claimant said that it had been wrongfully deprived of relief from business rates for its two temples. It asserted that it was a religion, and that the treatment was discriminatory. The government said that the refusal was on the basis alone that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Human Rights, Ecclesiastical

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.271275

Thai Concept and Cuisine Ltd v Phillips: UTLC 21 Apr 2011

UTLC RATING – valuation – 2005 list – restaurant and premises – proposal for temporary reduction due to interference resulting from neighbouring development works – 20% reduction agreed – subsequent proposal for further reduction due to road closure – whether further reduction justified – held it was not – appeal dismissed.

[2011] UKUT 115 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.440785

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v United Kingdom: ECHR 4 Mar 2014

latterdayECHR0314

The claimant said that it had been wrongfully deprived of relief from business rates for its two temples. It asserted that it was a religion, and that the treatment was discriminatory. The government said that the refusal was on the basis alone that the temples were not open to the public, and similar differentiations for example applied to the Church of England.
Held: Article 14 complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to ‘the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms’ safeguarded by those provisions. The claim failed: ‘insofar as any difference of treatment between religious groups in comparable situations can be said to have been established in relation to tax exemption of places of worship, such difference of treatment had a reasonable and objective justification. In particular, the contested measure pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest and there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between that aim and the means used to achieve it. The domestic authorities cannot be considered as having exceeded the margin of appreciation available to them in this context, even having due regard to the duties incumbent on the State by virtue of Article 9 of the Convention in relation to its exercise of its regulatory powers in the sphere of religious freedom. ‘

Ineta Ziemele, P
7552/09 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 227
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 9 14
Citing:
CitedEweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
CitedGallagher (Valuation Officer) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints HL 30-Jul-2008
The House considered whether certain properties of the Church were subject to non-domestic rating. Various buildings were on the land, and the officer denied that some fell within the exemptions, and in particular whether the Temple itself was a . .
CitedChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (Valuation Officer) HL 1964
The House was asked whether the Mormon Temple at Godstone was exempt from rates as a ‘place of public religious worship’.
Held: The words could not apply to places used for religious worship from which the public was excluded.
Lord Pearce . .
CitedNational Union of Belgian Police v Belgium ECHR 27-Oct-1975
Hudoc No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+11
The Belgian Government failed to consult a municipal police union about legislation affecting public sector employment rights. The union’s direct . .
CitedThlimmenos v Greece ECHR 6-Apr-2000
(Grand Chamber) The application of a rule that a felon could not become a chartered accountant infringed the rights under article 14, taken in conjunction with article 9, of a pacifist convicted of the felony of refusing to perform military service. . .
CitedSchmidt And Dahlstrom v Sweden ECHR 6-Feb-1976
ECHR No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+11 . .
CitedHasan and Chaush v Bulgaria ECHR 26-Oct-2000
The Grand Chamber considered executive interference in the appointment of the Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims: ‘Where the organisation of the religious community is at issue, Article 9 must be interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the . .
CitedMetropolitan Church Of Bessarabia And Others v Moldova ECHR 13-Dec-2001
‘in principle, the right to freedom of religion as understood in the Convention rules out any appreciation by the state of the legitimacy of religious beliefs or of the manner in which these are expressed’ . .
CitedDH v Czech Republic ECHR 13-Nov-2007
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that their children had been moved to special schools which did not reflect their needs from ordinary schools without them being consulted.
Held: The Court noted that, at the relevant time, the . .
CitedReligionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas And Others v Austria ECHR 31-Jul-2008
The State has a duty to remain neutral and impartial in exercising its regulatory power in the sphere of religious freedom and in its relations with different religions, denominations and beliefs. . .
CitedBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Dec-2006
Sisters,Together always not Discriminated Against
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives and owned property jointly. They complained that the Inheritance Tax regime treated them worse than it would a married couple, and was discriminatory.
Held: . .
CitedRunkee And White v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2007
The claimant said that the rules which denied him a widow’s pension were sex discrimination.
Held: The normally strict test for justification of sex discrimination in the enjoyment of the Convention rights gives way to the ‘manifestly without . .
CitedSavez Crkava (Rijec Zivota) And Others v Croatia ECHR 9-Dec-2010
. .
CitedCarson and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 4-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) Pensioners who had moved abroad complained that they had been excluded from the index-linked uprating of pensions given to pensioners living in England.
Held: This was not an infringement of their human rights. Differences in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Ecclesiastical, Rating

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.521979

Poplar Assessment Committee v Roberts: HL 1922

A public house was to be valued for rating under the 1869 Act. The question was whether the 1920 regulations, which limited the rent which could be charged, limited also the rating value.
Held: The statutory hypothesis used in setting a rateable value of a hereditament is the means of establishing the value of the occupier’s occupation and that the amount that the occupier actually pays in the real world in order to occupy the hereditament, whether that amount arises from an agreement or by force of statute, will not be evidence of this value unless it accords, or can be adjusted to accord, with the statutory hypothesis. The statutory restriction was not material to the determination of the valuation for the purposes of rating.
Buckmaster L said: ‘From the earliest time, it is the inhabitant that has to be taxed. It is in respect of his occupation that the rate is levied, and the standard in the Act is nothing more but a means of finding out what the value of that occupation is for the purposes of the assessment. In my opinion, the rent that the tenant might reasonably be expected to pay is the rent which, apart from all conditions affecting or limiting its receipt in the hands of the landlord, would be regarded as a reasonable rent for the tenant who occupied under the conditions which the statute of 1869 imposes.’ Lord Parmoor: ‘ Under 43 Eliz.c.2, rates are to be levied upon every occupier of lands, houses etc. The distinction between occupier and owner, in this connection, is of primary importance. The occupation of property may be, and often is, distinct from its value to the owner. This distinction would probably be emphasised where an artificial statutory maximum is fixed and a statutory restriction prevents an owner from recovering from any tenant a greater amount, as rent, than the statutory maximum.’

Lord Buckmaster, Lord Parmoor, Lord Atkinson, Lord Carson
[1922] AC 93
Valuation (Metropolis) Act 1869, Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedOrange PCS v Alan Roy Bradford (Valuation Officer) CA 17-Feb-2004
The claimant challenged the rating of the land it had used for the erection of a mobile ohone mast.
Held: Even though the company had the statutory right to place a mast in this location and without payment, for rating purposes the officer . .
CitedNewbigin (Valuation Officer) v SJ and J Monk (A Firm) SC 1-Mar-2017
The court was asked: ‘Does a commercial building which is in the course of redevelopment have to be valued for the purposes of rating as if it were still a useable office? ‘
Held: Appeal from decision of CA granted. On the facts found by the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.193770

The Vestryman of The Parish of St Marylebone In Middlesex v The Zoological Society Of London: 31 May 1854

The Zoological Society was incorporated by Charter ‘for the advancement of Zoology and Animal Physiology, and the introduction of new and curious subjects of the animal kingdom.’ They occupied land on which were buildings appropriated as receptacles for housing animals and birds, and as a museum for stuffed specimens. Three acres, not so appropriated, were cultivated as a flower garden. Refreshment rooms on the premises were occupied for the purpose of supplying refreshment to visitors, by M, who paid to the Society a rent for this privilege. The public were admitted, to the grounds, either by paying money upon each admittance, or by ticketa given to them by the fellows. Once in the weeks for three months in tbe year, the Society procured the attendance of a musical band.
Held: The Society was not exempt from rates, under stat. 6 and 7 Vict. c. 36, s. 1, the premises not being occupied exclusively for the purposes of science. The Society was supported in part by annual contributions from the fellows and subscribers. Each fellow was entitled to personal admission, with a specified number of companions on, every day, and could also give admission at oertain times by written orders and tickets, to which he was entitled: and fellows were also entitled to purchase tickets giving free admission to the bearer. Subscribers also were entitled to purchase annually an ivory ticket, admitting a named person of their family, with a companion,. Semble: that the annual contributions by the felloes were not voluntary contributions within the meaning of sect 1, inasmuch as the fellows and subscribers obtained a benefit not purely scientific, in consideration of the payments.

[1854] EngR 566, (1854) 3 El and Bl 807, (1854) 118 ER 1343
Commonlii
England and Wales

Charity, Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.293423

Allan v Liverpool Overseers: 1874

The court was asked whether a steamship company was liable to be rated in respect of its occupation of sheds which it occupied under a licence from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The court noted that liability for rates fell only on a person who had exclusive occupation.
Held: ‘The poor-rate is a rate imposed by the statute on the occupier, and that occupier must be the exclusive occupier, a person who, if there was a trespass committed on the premises, would be the person to bring an action of trespass for it. A lodger in a house, although he has the exclusive use of rooms in the house, in the sense that nobody else is to be there, and although his goods are stored there, yet he is not in exclusive occupation in that sense, because the landlord is there for the purpose of being able, as landlords commonly do in the case of lodgings, to have his own servants to look after the house and the furniture, and has retained to himself the occupation, though he has agreed to give the exclusive enjoyment of the occupation to the lodger. Such a lodger could not bring ejectment or trespass quare clausum fregit, the maintenance of the action depending on the possession; and he is not rateable.’
Templeton L said: ‘If on the other hand residential accommodation is granted for a term at a rent with exclusive possession, the landlord providing neither attendance nor services, the grant is a tenancy; any express reservation to the landlord of limited rights to enter and view the state of the premises and to repair and maintain the premises only serves to emphasise the fact that the grantee is entitled to exclusive possession and is a tenant.’ and ‘There can be no tenancy unless the occupier enjoys exclusive possession; but an occupier who enjoys exclusive possession is not necessarily a tenant. He may be owner in fee simple, a trespasser, a mortgagee in possession, an object of charity or a service occupier.’ and ‘Sometimes it may appear from the surrounding circumstances that the right to exclusive possession is referable to a legal relationship other than a tenancy. Legal relationships to which the grant of exclusive possession might be referable and which would or might negative the grant of an estate or interest in the land include occupancy under a contract for the sale of the land, occupancy pursuant to a contract of employment or occupancy referable to the holding of an office.’

Blackburn J, Templeton L
(1874) LR 9 QB 180
Mersey Docks Act 1858
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAppah v Parncliffe Investments Ltd CA 1964
The test of whether a person is a lodger, as opposed to a sub-tenant, must be determined by the degree of control retained by the householder over the rooms which the lodger occupies. . .
CitedStreet v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
CitedGray and others v Taylor CA 2-Apr-1998
A right of occupation given by an almshouse under a charitable trust was an occupation under a licence without right of possession, not an assured tenancy. The plaintiff’s conditions of occupancy stated: ‘Residents are licensees and pay a . .
CitedManchester Airport Plc v Dutton and others CA 23-Feb-1999
The claimant sought an order requiring delivery of possession of land occupied by the respondent objectors. They needed to remove trees from the land in order to construct a runway on their own adjacent land. The claimant had been granted a licence . .
CitedCrancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa and Another CA 26-Feb-1986
The plaintiff sought possession of two rooms in a house occupied by the defendants separately. The agreements stated that they were licences. The agreements excluded the occupiers between 10:30am and noon on each day. The occupiers claimed to be . .
CitedNorth Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Deleayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .
CitedWatts v Stewart and Others CA 8-Dec-2016
The court considered the status of residents of almshouses, and in particular whether they were licensees or tenants with associated security.
Held: The occupier’s appeal failed: ‘We do not accept the proposition that, if and insofar as Mrs . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.247613

J Miles Ltd v Moore (Valuation Officer): UTLC 27 Apr 2010

UTLC RATING – valuation – warehouse – state of repair to be assumed – held necessary repair works would not have been considered uneconomic and therefore valuation must assume state of reasonable repair – Rating (Valuation) Act 1999, s1

Rose FRICS
[2010] UKUT 106 (LC)
Bailii
Rating (Valuation) Act 1999 81
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.415015

John Laing and Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Committee: KBD 1949

The appellant building contractors had been engaged by the Air Ministry to execute works at an aerodrome. They erected on the site, for the purpose of carrying out the contract, offices, garages, canteen for workmen and other structures. Although the site was handed over to the contractors, the conditions of the contract between the contractors and the Air Ministry specified that the execution of the work was subject to the control and direction of the Ministry’s Superintending Officer. In due course the local rating authority proposed to amend its valuation list by adding the contractors’ officers and other structures as a rateable hereditament. A special case was stated for the opinion of the Divisional Court on the question whether the contractors were in rateable occupation of that hereditament.
Held: The contractor’s appeal failed. The four conditions of rateable occupation are (i) actual occupational possession (which involves actual as opposed to intended user of the land in question); (ii) occupation or possession which is exclusive (ie if the occupier can exclude all other persons from using the land in the same way as he does); (iii) occupation or possession which is of some value or benefit to the occupier/possessor; (iv) occupation or possession which has a sufficient quality of permanence.
Tucker LJ said: ‘Mr Rowe has said that there are four necessary ingredients in rateable occupation, and I do not think there is any controversy with regard to those ingredients. First, there must be actual occupation; secondly, that it must be exclusive for the particular purposes of the possessor; thirdly, that the possession must be of some value or benefit to the possessor; and, fourthly, the possession must not be for too transient a period.’
Jenkins J, dealing with the fourth requirement, considered that it had been met by the fact that the builders’ huts had been on the land for the two years that work was being carried out there.

Tucker LJ, Jenkins J
[1949] 1 KB 344
England and Wales
Cited by:
ApprovedLondon County Council v Wilkins (Valuation Officer) HL 1957
Four builders’ moveable huts, which had been erected as temporary structures on a site for 18 months, only one of which was moved from one part of the site to the other during that period, were claimed chattels and therefore not rateable.
CitedTallington Lakes Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Grantham Magistrates Court Admn 25-Nov-2010
The company appealed against liability orders made against it for non-payment of domestic rates, saying that in each case it had not been the rateable occupier. The property had been subdivided and let to companies of which the appellant was a . .
CitedJDE Plant Hire Limited v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company appealed against liability orders made against it. It owned premises which were subdivided and let to other businesses which it contended were the ones in actual occupation, since it did not benefit from physical, non-transient . .
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop Admn 6-Mar-2012
The respondent occupied a tugboat with his family as his home. The appellant authority had sought to charge council tax, saying that it was a dwelling. The boat was not a houseboat but a live-aboard seagoing vessel, registered in the Small Ships . .
ApprovedCinderella Rockerfellas Ltd v Rudd (Valuation Officer) CA 11-Apr-2003
The taxpayer appealed against a rating assessment on a barge permanently moored at a riverbank. He claimed that as a chattel, it should not be rated.
Held: The vessel was a chattel, but its occupation could be an occupation of the riverbed. . .
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop CA 17-Apr-2013
The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that . .
CitedSunderland City Council v Stirling Investment Properties Llp Admn 24-May-2013
The Council appealed by cases stated against dismissal of its summons against the defendant alleging non-payment of non-domestic rates. The property owned by the respondent had been occupied by a tenant, but only by a small equipment box, and the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.181050

Reeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop: Admn 6 Mar 2012

The respondent occupied a tugboat with his family as his home. The appellant authority had sought to charge council tax, saying that it was a dwelling. The boat was not a houseboat but a live-aboard seagoing vessel, registered in the Small Ships Register; The question was whether it amounted to a heraditament.
Held: The listing officer’s appeal succeeded. Duration of the occupation of land, whilst an important factor, was not the sole determining one. Even so, the Tribunal had given insufficient weight to the long term nature of the mooring, and had been wrong to take account of ‘the overall circumstances of the mooring arrangements.’ The way the boat had been moored had no legal significance. The entry in the Council Tax valuation list was to be restored.
Wyn Williams J said:’ the correct legal position is that duration of occupation will always be an important factor when determining whether occupation should be regarded as ‘not too transient’ or ‘sufficiently permanent’. No doubt, in practice, there will be cases in which the period of occupation will be such as to be, in effect, determinative of the issue of transience or permanency. However, I do not consider that other factors will be irrelevant, necessarily in every case. In my judgment, it cannot be said that a court or Tribunal will act unlawfully, inevitably if it takes account of factors other than duration of occupation when resolving the issue of transience or permanency.’

Wyn Williams J
[2012] EWHC 415 (Admin), [2012] PTSR 1567, [2012] RA 117, [2012] WLR(D) 61, [2012] 1 WLR 2177, [2012] ACD 57
Bailii, WLRD
Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009, General Rate Act 1967 115(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedJohn Laing and Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Committee KBD 1949
The appellant building contractors had been engaged by the Air Ministry to execute works at an aerodrome. They erected on the site, for the purpose of carrying out the contract, offices, garages, canteen for workmen and other structures. Although . .
CitedLondon County Council v Wilkins (Valuation Officer) HL 1957
Four builders’ moveable huts, which had been erected as temporary structures on a site for 18 months, only one of which was moved from one part of the site to the other during that period, were claimed chattels and therefore not rateable.
CitedField Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding CA 1966
The Court considered the rateability of a residential caravan site. The caravans were on wheels and retained their mobility although they were jacked up to keep them stable.
Held: Although a chattel is not a rateable hereditament by itself, it . .
CitedHilleshog Sugar Beet Breeding Co Ltd v Wilke LT 1971
hilleshopLT1971
Parcels of land were occupied for 9-10 months in a year.
Held: This was not too transient a period to establish a rateable occupation notwithstanding that in subsequent years the occupation passed on to the other land.
Sir Michael Rowe . .
CitedThomas (Valuation Officer) v Whitney Aquatic Co Ltd LT 1972
The ratepayers had a legal right to use a lake for sporting activities and to maintain a floating clubhouse on the lake. The clubhouse was made fast in a particular location upon the lake but it was moved in winter months to an island in the centre . .
CitedCinderella Rockerfellas Ltd v Rudd (Valuation Officer) CA 11-Apr-2003
The taxpayer appealed against a rating assessment on a barge permanently moored at a riverbank. He claimed that as a chattel, it should not be rated.
Held: The vessel was a chattel, but its occupation could be an occupation of the riverbed. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop CA 17-Apr-2013
The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.451809

Brophy v Simmonds (Valuation Officer): UTLC 10 May 2016

UTLC Rating – Costs – appeal against a VTE Decision – Respondent concedes appeal before hearing – Land Chamber’s simplified procedure – whether Respondent’s late concession amounts to unreasonable behaviour – whether Appellant entitled to wasted costs – Lands Chamber’s Practice Directions 2010 – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKUT 217 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.564151

Aviva Investors Property Developments Ltd v Whitby (Valuation Officer) and Others: UTLC 4 Sep 2013

aviva_whitbyUTLC0913

UTLC RATING – hereditament – four newly erected warehouse buildings – entered in 2005 rating list by VO – units having no small power distribution and no lighting or only limited lighting in warehouse areas and no partitioning of office space – one unit having no connection to gas supply – whether rateable hereditaments to be entered in rating list – held they were not – Local Government Finance Act 1988, s.42(1) – importance of completion notice procedure in avoiding disputes – appeals allowed

Martin Rodger QC, DP and N J Rose FRICS
[2013] UKUT 430 (LC)
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988 42(1)
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.517590

Hilleshog Sugar Beet Breeding Co Ltd v Wilke: LT 1971

hilleshopLT1971

Parcels of land were occupied for 9-10 months in a year.
Held: This was not too transient a period to establish a rateable occupation notwithstanding that in subsequent years the occupation passed on to the other land.
Sir Michael Rowe QC, P said: ‘The ratepayers’ possession of the plots they hold in any one year is not intermittent nor is it casual; it is a continuous possession for nine months or so, which cover the whole, at least in most years, of the period during which the land can be cultivated and planted up and the crop grown to maturity and harvested’.

Sir Michael Rowe QC P
[1971] RA 275
Cited by:
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop Admn 6-Mar-2012
The respondent occupied a tugboat with his family as his home. The appellant authority had sought to charge council tax, saying that it was a dwelling. The boat was not a houseboat but a live-aboard seagoing vessel, registered in the Small Ships . .
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop CA 17-Apr-2013
The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.451836

Calver v Thomas (Valuation Officer): UTLC 26 Sep 2013

calver_thomasUTLC0913

UTLC RATING – valuation – 2010 list – self catering holiday cottages – comparable assessments – valuation approach – re-assessment by VO – appeal dismissed on grounds stated, but RV reduced from andpound;7,400 to andpound;5,900 on VO’s re-assessment

P R Francis FRICS
[2013] UKUT 35 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.517592

Bradford (Valuation Officer) v Vtesse Networks Ltd: LT 7 Nov 2008

LT RATING – valuation – 2000 list – local telecommunications network – comparables – whether valuation should be based on apportionment of assessment of much larger nationwide network – whether tone of list established – whether Lands Tribunal bound by conclusion reached by European Commission – whether ratepayer’s arguments amounted to abuse of process – appeal allowed – RV determined at andpound;110,000 and andpound;470,000 at the two effective dates.

[2008] EWLands RA – 50 – 2004
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoValuation Officer v Vtesse Networks Ltd LT 24-Nov-2005
LT RATING – hereditament – telecommunications system consisting of ratepayer’s ‘own-build’ sections and optical fibres belonging to other operators and contained in cables of those other operators – contractual . .
At CA (1)Valuation Officer v Vtesse Networks Ltd LT 24-Nov-2005
LT RATING – hereditament – telecommunications system consisting of ratepayer’s ‘own-build’ sections and optical fibres belonging to other operators and contained in cables of those other operators – contractual . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromBradford (Valuation Officer) v Vtesse Networks Ltd CA 28-Jan-2010
The company appealed against a finding that it was liable to non-domestic rates in respect of its network of fibre-optic cable. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.278634

Pavlou (VO) Re: 10 Paternoster Square: UTLC 18 Mar 2015

UTLC RATING – Alteration of rating list – material change of circumstances due to Occupy London protest – whether too transient to affect rental bid at AVD – relevance of actual rent concession made by landlord – analysis of rent concession – appeal allowed in part

A J Trott FRICS
[2015] UKUT 102 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.544730

Corey v Bristow: HL 1877

The House considered the liability to be rated to the relief of the poor of the parish within which lay that part of the river where a derrick hulk was moored.
Held: Lord Hatherley said: ‘As Lord Campbell expressed it in one of the cases last cited (Forest v the Overseers of Greenwich, 8 L EL and BL at p. 900), as regards the nature of the occupation the question is, whether it be ‘a permanent and profitable occupation of land within the parish’ which seeks to assess the person in respect of such occupation. As regards the interest of the person who is to be rated it must be an interest in himself exclusively.’
James LJ said: ‘There is no dispute as to the general principle of law, viz., that where any part of the soil is permanently occupied by anybody for profitable purposes . . then the person so occupying is rateable in respect of such occupation . .’
Lush J said: ‘Another element, however, beside actual possession of land, is necessary to constitute the kind of occupation which the Act contemplates, and that is permanence . . As the poor-rate is not made day by day or week by week, but for months in advance, it would be absurd to hold, that a person, who comes into a parish with the intention to remain there a few days or a week only, incurs a liability to maintain the poor for the next six months. Thus a transient, temporary holding of land is not enough to make the holding rateable. It must be an occupation which has in it the character of permanence; a holding as a settler not as a wayfarer. These I take to be the essential elements of what is called a beneficial or rateable occupation . . ‘

Lord Hatherley, James LJ, Lush J
(1877) 2 App Cas 262
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedForrest v Overseers of Greenwich 1858
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 . .

Cited by:
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop CA 17-Apr-2013
The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.513673

Roberts (Valuation Officer) v West Coast Marine (Pwllheli) Ltd: UTLC 27 Aug 2013

UTLC RATING – alteration of rating list by valuation officer – effective date of alteration – whether any discretion for valuation tribunal to designate fair and reasonable date – Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2005- appeal allowed

Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President
[2013] UKUT 413 (LC)
Bailii
Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2005
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.516023

Encon Insulation Ltd v Nottingham City Council: Admn 9 Jun 1999

When the rating authority discovered ratable premises, and issued claims going back in time the test was not whether they were unaware of them earlier, but whether they could have taken steps beforehand to discover the existence of the premises. A default by the council in taking the practicable steps available to them precluded any recovery. They had accordingly failed to establish a right to claim back rates.
David Pannick QC said: ‘I am therefore satisfied that the Magistrates failed to ask themselves the right question whether there were practicable steps which the billing authority could and should have taken at an earlier stage than November 1997 to locate the relevant premises. I am also satisfied that had the Magistrates asked themselves the right question, the only answer to which they could reasonably have come was to find that there had been a breach of paragraph 5(1)(a) of the regulations and so a liability order could not lawfully be made.
I should mention that the Magistrates noted that they did not need to decide whether the requirement imposed by Regulation 5(1) was mandatory. Counsel for the billing authority has not advanced any argument seeking to limit the consequences of there being a breach of Regulation 5(1). That does not surprise me. Regulation 5(1) contains a balance between the interests of the ratepayers and the practicalities of administration. Parliament must have intended that if the billing authority has not complied with the requirement it would be wrong in principle for the ratepayer to have an obligation thereafter to pay.’

David Pannick QC
Gazette 16-Jun-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 530, [1999] RA 382
Bailii
Non-Domestic (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989
England and Wales
Cited by:
DistinguishedRegentford Ltd v Thanet District Council Admn 18-Feb-2004
The council sought to enforce payment of arrears of council tax. The company responded that proceedings had not been begun in time. The company contended that time ran from the day when the council set the precept. The regulations said that time ran . .
CitedJJB Sports Plc, Regina (On the Application of) v Telford and Wrekin Borough Council Admn 5-Nov-2008
The authority’s demand notice was served later than was practicable. The company now appealed against a liability order.
Held: The ratepayer’s appeal by way of Case Stated was dismissed. ‘demand notices must be served by the relevant authority . .
CitedNorth Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Deleayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Local Government

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.139794

Pearce (Valuation Officer) Re: White Waltham Aerodrome: UTLC 8 Jul 2014

UTLC RATING – alteration of rating list – whether VO entitled to alter list on grounds of inaccuracy following a decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England – res judicata – abuse of process – material change of circumstances – whether VO required to confine re-valuation to the effect of the material change but otherwise to follow Valuation Tribunal’s valuation – appeal allowed

Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President
[2014] UKUT 291 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.535662

Edwards v Howarth (Valuation Officer): UTLC 2 Aug 2011

UTLC RATING – public house – valuation – application of Approved Guide – lack of evidence of trading accounts for appeal hereditament at AVD for 2005 list – appellant’s use of 2009/10 accounts rejected – comparables – assessment confirmed at pounds 30,750 – appeal dismissed

[2011] UKUT 309 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.445660

Reeves (Valuation Officer) v Tunnel Tech Ltd: UTLC 7 Apr 2014

RATING – Agricultural exemption – Local Government Finance Act 1988, s.51, Schedule 5, paragraph 1 – paragraph 2 (1)(d), meaning of agricultural land – whether hereditament consisting of buildings ‘anything which consists of a market garden, nursery ground’ – paragraph 3(b), meaning of agricultural building – whether hereditament ‘is or forms part of a market garden’ – appeal succeeds

HH David Mole QC
[2014] UKUT 159 (LC)
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988 51
England and Wales

Rating, Agriculture

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.525948

Tallington Lakes Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Grantham Magistrates Court: Admn 25 Nov 2010

The company appealed against liability orders made against it for non-payment of domestic rates, saying that in each case it had not been the rateable occupier. The property had been subdivided and let to companies of which the appellant was a holding company.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The property was a single heraditament. To be liable the appellant had to be in occupation of the whole site. This had been found by the deputy district judge, but she had not referred to any evidence to support it, and nor indeed had the Council brought evidence, and nor had the company’s evidence been challenged.

Stephen Morris QC J
[2010] EWHC 3403 (Admin), [2011] RA 179, [2011] ACD 78
Bailii
Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989, Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWestminster City Council v Southern Railway Co HL 1936
Subject to special enactments, people are treated as occupiers of land, land being understood as including not only the surface of the earth but all strata above or below. The occupier, not the land, is rateable; but the occupier is rateable in . .
CitedJohn Laing and Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Committee KBD 1949
The appellant building contractors had been engaged by the Air Ministry to execute works at an aerodrome. They erected on the site, for the purpose of carrying out the contract, offices, garages, canteen for workmen and other structures. Although . .
CitedJDE Plant Hire Limited v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company appealed against liability orders made against it. It owned premises which were subdivided and let to other businesses which it contended were the ones in actual occupation, since it did not benefit from physical, non-transient . .
CitedKent County Council v Ashford Borough Council and others CA 28-Jul-1999
The governors of a voluntary controlled school were not the ratable occupiers of it, but rather the local education authority were. The devolution of a limited range of financial responsibility by the Education Act 1996 did not transfer the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.443285

Green v Sutton-Riley (Valuation Office): LT 5 Dec 2008

Rating valuation appeal dismissed

LT RATING – valuation – shops – whether appeal parade less valuable than other side of shopping street – rental evidence – assessments – tone of list – lack of central heating – claimed disability due to layout – appeals dismissed.

[2008] EWLands RA – 42 – 2007
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.372342

Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer): SC 7 Mar 2018

Air System plant excluded from Rating value

The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes.
Held: Iceland’s appeal was allowed and the decision of the First Tier Tribunal restored. The 2000 Regulations had not intended to alter the law: ‘ plant which is used in connection with ‘services to the hereditament’ may also be used in connection with ‘services . . as part of manufacturing operations or trade processes . . ‘. Viewed in this way, the key distinction lies in the main use to which the services are put: in connection with the hereditament, or with the processes within it.’
The rateable value of a non-domestic hereditament is taken to be ‘an amount equal to the rent at which it is estimated the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year’ on the basis of certain prescribed assumptions. Prescribed assumptions are set out in the 2000 Regulations which include the assumption that any plant or machinery, if it belongs to any class listed in the Schedule to the 2000 Regulations, is assumed to be part of the hereditament in or on which it is situated: ‘ other than any such plant or machinery which is in or on the hereditament and is used or intended to be used in connection with services mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing operations or trade processes.” The plant ell within this exemption.

Lord Kerr, Lord Reed,Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lady Black
[2018] UKSC 15, UKSC 2016/0226
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary video, SC 250118 am Jhearing, SC 290118pm Hearing
Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (England) Regulations 2000, Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sch 6
England and Wales
Citing:
At UTLCBerry (VO) v Iceland Foods Ltd UTLC 14-Jan-2015
UTLC RATING – PLANT AND MACHINERY – air handling unit – whether rateable – whether used mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing operations or trade processes – meaning of ‘trade processes’ – reg.2, . .
At CAIceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) CA 23-Nov-2016
The court was asked whether the air handling system used by Iceland Foods Limited in its retail store at Liverpool was plant or machinery ‘used or intended to be used in connection with services mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing . .
Much CriticisedKirby v Hunslet Union Assessment Committee HL 1906
The Act provided that the assessment of hereditaments was regulated on the principle that the rateable value was the rent which might be expected to be given for the hereditament alon
Held: The House disapproved a distinction based on whether . .
CitedTownley Mill (1919) Limited v Oldham Assessment Committee KBD 1936
Lord Hewart CJ said: ‘When one turns to the Third Schedule of the [1925] Act, it is apparent that it enumerates that type of machinery and plant which is conveniently described in the case as motive machinery; it is the machinery without which the . .
CitedTownley Mill (1919) Limited v Oldham Assessment Committee HL 1937
Section 24 of the 1925 Act was considered.
Held: The House re-instated the decision at divisional level. The court described the basis upon which a property was to be valued for rating purposes. Viscount Maugham said it concerned: ‘ a . .
CitedUnion Cold Storage Co Ltd v Bancroft HL 1931
The House considered whether refrigeration equipment was for storage purposes or for the purposes of altering or adapting goods for sale.
Held: It was for storage purposes, although the refrigeration was described as being by means of an . .
CitedUnion Cold Storage Co Ltd v Southwark Assessment Committee QBD 1932
The rateability of certain cooling chambers in a warehouse used for storing food. 25% of what was undertaken there may have been freezing food and the remaining 75% storing food.
Held: Macnaughten J discussed the cold storage plant and . .
CitedPepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
CitedKilmarnock Equitable Co-operative Society Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCS 16-Feb-1966
Income Tax, Schedule D – Profits Tax – Capital allowances – Industrial building or structure – Building for screening and packing coal – Whether coal subjected to a process – Whether building used for purpose ancillary to a retail shop – Income Tax . .
CitedAssessor for Lothian Region v BP Oil Grangemouth Refinery Ltd 1985
Lands Valuation Appeal Court – a marine terminal at a petrochemical works, used solely for the purpose of loading refined oil, was premises ‘used in an industrial or trade process’ . .
CitedHays Business Services Ltd v Raley (Valuation Officer) 1986
A warehouse was used for the storage of archival materials including documents, films and audio-magnetic tapes. For some items of a sensitive nature, there had been installed specialist items of plant, including heating plant, humidifiers, and . .
CitedBestway (Holdings) Ltd v Luff (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 4-Mar-1998
The taxpayer company operated a wholesale cash and carry business from a number of self-service supermarkets. The stores sold groceries, household goods, tobacco, confectionery and various kinds of alcohol. Although the buildings were not open to . .
CitedLeda Properties Ltd, Re: Computer Centre LT 27-Mar-2009
LT RATING – hereditament – computer centre – whether entry to be deleted from list on ground that incapable of beneficial use – held that it should not be – whether open to appellant on basis of proposal for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.605757

Hewitt (VO) v Telereal Trillium: UTLC 16 Jun 2016

Entry of nil valuation on list

UTLC RATING – Valuation – non- domestic hereditament – Local Government Finance Act 1988 schedule 6 – appeal to Upper Tribunal raising a point of law upon agreed facts – agreement that had the subject office hereditament been on the market at the relevant date nobody in the real world would have been prepared to occupy the property and pay a positive price – other comparable office properties in occupation at substantial rents at relevant date – whether a nil (or nominal) rateable value to be entered in valuation list . . appeal allowed.

[2016] UKUT 258 (LC)
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales
Cited by:
At UTLCTelereal Trillium v Hewitt (Valuation Officer) CA 19-Jan-2018
The land owner appealed from a finding that the offices which it could not let for lack of commercial demand had a rating list valuation of pounds 370,000.
Held: The valuation was set aside and replaced with a value reflecting the market value . .
At UTLCTelereal Trillium v Hewitt (Valuation Officer) SC 15-May-2019
The court considered correct approach to determination of the rateable value of an office building, in circumstances where the evidence showed at the relevant time a general demand in the area for comparable office buildings, but no actual tenant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.565806

Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Co: HL 1936

Subject to special enactments, people are treated as occupiers of land, land being understood as including not only the surface of the earth but all strata above or below. The occupier, not the land, is rateable; but the occupier is rateable in respect of the land which he occupies. Whether the person sought to be rated has the enjoyment of the land ‘to the substantial exclusion of all other persons’ is a question of in fact is the occupation in respect of which the person is said to be rateable and, in that respect, it is immaterial whether the title to occupy is attributable to a lease or a licence.
Lord Russell of Killowen said: ‘In the next place I would make a few general observations upon rateable occupation. Subject to special enactments, people are rated as occupiers of land, the land being understood as including not only the surface of the earth but all strata above or below. The occupier, not the land, is rateable; but, the occupier is rateable in respect of the land which he occupies. Occupation, however, is not synonymous with legal possession: the owner of an empty house has the legal possession, but he is not in rateable occupation. Rateable occupation, however, must include actual possession, and it must have some degree of permanence: a mere temporary holding of land will not constitute rateable occupation.’
. . And ‘Where there is no rival claimant to the occupancy, no difficulty can arise; but in certain cases there may be rival occupancy in some person who, to some extent, may have occupancy rights over the premises. The question in every such case must be one of fact – namely, whose position in relation to occupation is paramount, and whose permission in relation to occupancy is subordinate; but, in my opinion, the question must be considered and answered in regard to the position and rights of the parties in respect of the premises in question, and in regard to the purpose of the occupation of those premises.’

Lord Russell of Killowen
[1936] AC 511
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCinderella Rockerfellas Ltd v Rudd (Valuation Officer) CA 11-Apr-2003
The taxpayer appealed against a rating assessment on a barge permanently moored at a riverbank. He claimed that as a chattel, it should not be rated.
Held: The vessel was a chattel, but its occupation could be an occupation of the riverbed. . .
CitedRegina v Central Valuation Officer and another ex parte Edison First Power Limited HL 10-Apr-2003
Powergen sold a property to Edison. Powergen paid rates under a separate statutory rating regime, and paid an additional thirteen million pounds under an apportionment. Edison later complained that in being rated itself, the authorities had . .
CitedTallington Lakes Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Grantham Magistrates Court Admn 25-Nov-2010
The company appealed against liability orders made against it for non-payment of domestic rates, saying that in each case it had not been the rateable occupier. The property had been subdivided and let to companies of which the appellant was a . .
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop CA 17-Apr-2013
The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.181048

Porter (Valuation Officer) v Trustees of Gladman Sipps: UTLC 20 May 2011

UTLC RATING – hereditament – newly erected office buildings – entered in rating list by VO – units lacking small power points and partitioning – whether rateable hereditaments to be entered in the list – held they were not – appeal dismissed – Local Government Finance Act 1988 s 42(1).

N J Rose P
[2011] UKUT 204 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.440792

Co-Operative Group v Virk (Valuation Officer): UTLC 22 Oct 2020

Abuse of Process in Rating Alterations

Rating – Alteration of Rating List – validity of proposal challenging alteration to list made by VO to give effect to agreement – application to strike out appeals from the Valuation Tribunal for Wales and Valuation Tribunal for England – res judicata – abuse of process

[2020] UKUT 286 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedArnold v National Westminster Bank Plc HL 1991
Tenants invited the court to construe the terms of a rent review provision in the sub-underlease under which they held premises. The provision had been construed in a sense adverse to them in earlier proceedings before Walton J, but they had been . .
CitedJohnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
CitedThorntons Plc and Another UTLC 27-Apr-2018
Rating – Alteration of Rating List – Validity of Proposal Challenging alteration to list made by VO to give effect to agreement – whether abuse of process – Regs. 4, 12, 17 Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulation . .
CitedArnold v Dearing (VO) (Wedding Venue and Premises) UTLC 30-Jul-2019
Wedding venue and premises – proposal to divide single assessment into two hereditaments following letting of part for storage use – mode of use of retained part – whether reversion to single hereditament as wedding venue following termination of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.655165

Arsenal Football Club Ltd v Ende, Smith: HL 1978

It was said that the Arsenal football stadium was under-valued in local rating list. The House was asked who might be a ‘person aggrieved’ and entitled to complain about the under-valuation of a hereditament in the same area.
Held: A person liable to pay rates in the same area was entitled to challenge the valuation of another hereditament even if he could not show any financial or other loss to himself.
Lord Wilberforce said that ‘Uniformity and fairness have always been proclaimed and judicially approved as standards by which to judge the validity of rates.’
Viscount Dilhorne said: ‘While it is true that words in the English language take colour from the context in which they are used, I see nothing in the subsection or in the remainder of the 1967 Act to warrant giving to the word ‘aggrieved’ any meaning other than its ordinary natural meaning. To be ‘aggrieved’ a person must be affected by the matter of which he complains.’

Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
[1979] AC 1
General Rate Act 1967 69(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWalton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.470546

North Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others: QBD 2 Jul 2010

Deleayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective

The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created substantial prejudice. The Council challenged the correctness of the Waltham Forest and Nottingham cases.
Held: The court reviewed the issue of delay in issuing claims for rates. Though Honda had been in rateable occupation, the claims had ot been served as soon as was practicable, and, given the Council’s delays which would lead to an unconscionable burden on Honda, the case for recovering the sums claimed was unsustainable. The claim against all the defendants failed.

Burnett J
[2010] EWHC 1505 (QB), [2010] RA 285
Bailii
Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1058), Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEncon Insulation Ltd v Nottingham City Council Admn 9-Jun-1999
When the rating authority discovered ratable premises, and issued claims going back in time the test was not whether they were unaware of them earlier, but whether they could have taken steps beforehand to discover the existence of the premises. A . .
CitedLondon Borough of Waltham Forest, Regina (On the Application of) v Waltham Forest Magistrates’ Court and Yem Yom Ventures Limited Admn 4-Nov-2008
. .
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
CitedJJB Sports Plc, Regina (On the Application of) v Telford and Wrekin Borough Council Admn 5-Nov-2008
The authority’s demand notice was served later than was practicable. The company now appealed against a liability order.
Held: The ratepayer’s appeal by way of Case Stated was dismissed. ‘demand notices must be served by the relevant authority . .
CitedRegentford Ltd v Thanet District Council Admn 18-Feb-2004
The council sought to enforce payment of arrears of council tax. The company responded that proceedings had not been begun in time. The company contended that time ran from the day when the council set the precept. The regulations said that time ran . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jeyeanthan; Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 21-May-1999
The applicant had failed to comply with the Rules in not using the form prescribed for appliying for leave to appeal against a special adjudicator’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The application, by letter, included all the relevant . .
CitedHardy v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 27-Jul-2006
Appeal against finding of liability to pay council tax.
Held: A Magistrates’ Court which is invited to make a liability order may be entitled to refuse to make such an order in a case where there has been a serious breach of the mandatory . .
CitedHoward v Bodington Carc 27-Feb-1877
Imperative or Directory Statutory Requirements
The court considered the consequences of a failure to comply with a statutory requirement.
Held: The distinction drawn between statutory requirements which were ‘imperative’ on the one hand and ‘directory’ on the other involved unfortunate use . .
CitedLondon and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
Identifying ‘maandatory’ and ‘regulatory’
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
CitedRegentford Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Shepway District Council Admn 25-Oct-2006
A breach of the statutory duty by the billing authority to serve the notice as soon as practicable does not operate in all cases as a windfall to the person otherwise liable, but the breach precludes a claim to payment and a duty to pay only where . .
CitedWandsworth London Borough Council v Winder HL 1985
Rent demands were made by a local authority landlord on one of its tenants. The local authority, using its powers under the Act, resolved to increase rents generally. The tenant refused to pay the increased element of the rent. He argued that the . .
CitedCharles v The Judicial and Legal Service Commission and The Disciplinary Tribunal PC 19-Jun-2002
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) Disciplinary proceedings had commenced against the appellant, the chief magistrate, but the time limits had not been followed. The appellant argued that the time limits were mandatory. . .
CitedProject Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority 28-Apr-1998
(High Court of Australia) ‘In our opinion, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was correct in Tasker v Fullwood in criticising the continued use of the ‘elusive distinction between directory and mandatory requirements’ and the division of . .
CitedWang v Commissioner of Inland Revenue PC 19-Oct-1994
(Hong Kong) At first instance the judge found that the deputy commissioner lacked jurisdiction to make two determinations since he had not done so within a reasonable time required by the imperative language of the statute. The Court of Appeal . .
CitedBoddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
CitedDedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances CA 1973
The claimant sought to bring his claim under a provision which required a complaint to the industrial tribunal to be made within four weeks of the dismissal unless the employment tribunal was satisfied that this was not ‘practicable’. He did not . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable of South Wales and Another Ex Parte Merrick QBD 17-Feb-1994
The court considered the failure of the respondent to comply with a statutory requirement to comply with a request from a detained person to consult a solicitor ‘as soon as practicable’.
Held: For the police to deny access to solicitors at . .
CitedAllan v Liverpool Overseers 1874
The court was asked whether a steamship company was liable to be rated in respect of its occupation of sheds which it occupied under a licence from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The court noted that liability for rates fell only on a person . .
CitedHewson, Chapman and Co ltd v Grimsby County Borough Council 1953
That storage facilities might stand empty from time to time does not result in their ceasing to be in rateable occupation during those periods. . .
CitedMilford Haven Conservancy Board v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1976
The Minister had power to make provision by order for determining rateable values ‘by such method as may be so specified’. The formula prescribed by the Minister for dock undertakings was based on 4% of their receipts, including receipts from some . .
CitedCamden London Borough Council v Herwald 1978
Occupation of part of a hereditament by someone who retains legal possession of the whole and whose occupation of the part fulfils the description in the rating list, amounts to rateable occupation of the whole. . .
CitedRegina v Central Valuation Officer and another ex parte Edison First Power Limited HL 10-Apr-2003
Powergen sold a property to Edison. Powergen paid rates under a separate statutory rating regime, and paid an additional thirteen million pounds under an apportionment. Edison later complained that in being rated itself, the authorities had . .
CitedP.B. Groenveld BV v Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees ECJ 8-Nov-1979
A prohibited restriction on exports involved a national measure having discriminatory effect: ‘provision [i.e. Article 29 EC; now Article 35 TFEU] concerns the national measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of . .
CitedEdison First Power Ltd v The Secretary of State for Department of Environment Transport and the Regions CA 12-Jul-2001
. .

Cited by:
CitedSecerno Ltd and Others v Oxford Magistrates Court and Another Admn 19-Apr-2011
The applicants each sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrate that he did not have jurisdiction to decline to issue liability notices. They argued that the Council had failed to issue the required notices before placing the properties . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.420209

Allen (Valuation Officer) v Freemans Plc: UTLC 7 Dec 2009

UTLC RATING – valuation – large distribution warehouse – treatment of passing rent – comparable rents and assessments – mixed age building – adjustments for height and first floor accommodation – quantum – end allowance – appeal allowed in part – rateable value determined at 1,675,000 pounds

[2009] UKUT 240 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.415046

Pall Mall Investments (London) Ltd v Gloucester City Council: Admn 8 Jul 2014

The land-owner appealed by case stated against an assessment to unoccupied, non-domestic rate demands. The land-owner said that they were unoccupied through dilapidations and therefore exempt. They said that the court had wrongly disregarded their evidence that it would be an offence for the properties to be occupied in their condition.
Held: The appeal failed. It was not enough for the owner to establish that if he occupies the property or allows it to be occupied for a particular purpose he will render himself liable to prosecution under the health and safety legislation. At no time has the law prevented him from entering the premises in order to restore them. He must show that the law prohibits occupation, either because, as in Tower Hamlets, the law says he must not occupy in the circumstances as they currently prevail, or, as in Regent Lion Properties Ltd, that the necessary effect of a prohibition or enforcement notice is to prohibit him from occupation.

Pitchford LJ, Nicola Davies J
[2014] EWHC 2247 (Admin)
Bailii
Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) Local Lists Regulations 1989, Local Government Finance Act 1988 45
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedArbuckle Smith and Co Limited v Greenock Corporation HL 1960
The appellants had purchased a building which they wished to use as a bonded warehouse. In order to obtain the necessary licence they were required to carry out works of upgrading and repair. The rating authority made a demand for ‘occupied’ rates . .
CitedEasiwork Homes Ltd v Redbridge London Borough Council QBD 1970
The Court considered liability for a domestic rate during a period when a block of flats was being upgraded. Under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the General Rate Act 1967, where a relevant hereditament was unoccupied for a continuous period exceeding . .
CitedTower Hamlets London Borough Council v St Katherine by the Tower Limited QBD 1982
By section 34(4) of the 1939 Act, no building which required a means of escape from fire under section 34(1) ‘shall be occupied or let for occupation’ until the local authority had issued a certificate that the building had been provided with a . .
CitedRegent Lion Properties Limited v Westminster City Council CA 1990
An existing outline planning permission to develop land to include a parade of 12 shops in central London. In 1968 Pan American Airways Corporation took a sub-lease of the land and got planning permission to develop it as an air terminal for a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.533871

London County Council v Wilkins (Valuation Officer): HL 1957

Four builders’ moveable huts, which had been erected as temporary structures on a site for 18 months, only one of which was moved from one part of the site to the other during that period, were claimed chattels and therefore not rateable.
Held: Whether or not the structures had lost their character as chattels was not decisive as the test of rateability, nor was the conscious intention of the contractors to attach or not to attach them to the soil. These were factors to be considered and the test of rateability was whether there was evidence that the structures, occupied for a period which was not transient, were enjoyed with the land and enhanced its value. The test of rateability is whether there is evidence that the structures were enjoyed with the land and enhanced its value. In considering this, the intention of the erector and the other elements of annexation, period, size, quality, amenities and purpose are all material. All these factors are important, but intention, the ‘conscious element’ in intention, is no more than one factor and its importance is not overriding. The question is eminently one of fact.
Viscount Kilmuir set out what he regarded as the appropriate legal test for rateability: ‘I think that the Respondent’s submission was right, namely, that the test of rateability is whether there is evidence that the structures were enjoyed with the land and enhanced its value. In considering this, the intention of the erector and the other elements of annexation, period, size, quality, amenities and purpose are all material. All these factors are important, but intention, and certainly what I may call the ‘conscious element’ in intention, is no more than one factor and its importance is not overriding. The question is eminently one of fact.’
Lord Oaksey said: ‘A consideration of the authorities leads me to the conclusion that an occupier who makes any beneficial use of land is rateable if he does so for a period which is not transient.’
Lord Radcliffe said: ‘In my opinion, the present case really centres round the question whether the sheds, created on a building site by a building contractor for the purpose of his operations, involves such a degree of permanency in his occupation as to make it a rateable one. I have no doubt that, in considering this, it is at any rate relevant to ascertain to what extent and in what way these constructions have been made a fixed part of the site on which they stand, for the more casually they are attached the less likely it is that the occupation of them will be found to be a permanent one. In this sense it may be of some importance to enquire whether they are chattels or not. But to make the whole issue of rateability depends on the bare issue, for instance, whether a particular structure has or has not foundations in the ground which give it a measure of lateral as well as subjacent support would be to use a legal distinction for a purpose for which it was never intended . .
Certainly it is true that the law demands that an occupation to be rateable should be permanent. But then it is equally certain that permanence does not connote what it might appear to in this connexion. It is rather easier to say what it does not mean than what it does. An occupation is not the less permanent because it is that of a lessee who holds under a lease for a fixed term. In other words, there is permanent occupation however clearly the end might be in sight. More than that, an occupation can be permanent even though the structure or other chattel which is the means of occupation is removable on notice . . it may be that ‘permanent’ signifies no more than continuous, as opposed to intermittent, physical possession of the soil, as is suggested by the learned editors of Ryde on Rating (see 10th ed., p. 39). However that may be, it is well settled that a tenant at will has an occupation that is sufficiently permanent to carry rateability. If so, I see no reason why the contractor’s occupation of his huts during the pendency of the building contract should not produce a similar result. . .
But, in my opinion, within very wide limits, which are not overstepped in the present case, the question whether there is sufficient permanency of occupation is essentially a question of degree and as such is a proper question for the final determination of the Lands Tribunal. If the evidence had been, as it was not, that the huts or sheds were constantly being moved from one site to another, so that there was no real appropriation of any particular area of soil to the purposes of occupation, I can see that it might be necessary to say that the law did not admit so transient an occupation to be a rateable one. But all that we know is that one structure was once moved in the course of the operations and I do not think that we ought to assume that the occupation was in fact more transient than the evidence suggests. If so, 18 months on the site does not present itself to me as something inherently too brief for rateability. The rate is an annual impost on the occupier in respect of his profitable occupation of land; it is not a capital charge on the owner in respect of the property interest in the soil. If such an occupation in fact endures for a year or more I do not see why the occupier should not contribute to the current fund of the rating area for that period. The mere brevity of his occupation will be itself the cure of any hardship in his liability.’
Lord Tucker said: ‘A hereditament only becomes a subject of rateability if there is a sufficient element of ‘permanence’ in its occupation. This is essentially a question of fact and degree. It has long been settled that occupation for a defined period of time or even under a tenancy at will or by virtue of licence subject to revocation at any time may not be too transient to be regarded as ‘permanent’. See, for example, Cory v Bristow, where the moorings were subject to removal at a week’s notice from the conservators. If, therefore, the sites on which these huts stood, apart altogether from the huts themselves, were exclusively and beneficially occupied by the contractors for a sufficient length of time, they would become rateable hereditaments. The presence of the huts thereon would merely be an element enhancing the value of their occupation. In this case their presence is also a factor to be taken into consideration in deciding whether there has been a sufficient ‘carving out’ or appropriation of a particular portion of the site to amount to exclusive occupation by the contractors.’
Earl Jowitt thought it would not have been in the least surprising if the Lands Tribunal had come to a conclusion of fact that the structures in that case were ‘of such a transient nature’ as to justify their exclusion from the valuation bill; ‘they might be of such an unsubstantial and ephemeral character as to make it obvious that they should not be included’ on the valuation roll.

Viscount Kilmuir LC, Tucker, Oaksey, Radcliffe LL, Earl Jowitt
[1957] AC 362
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedJohn Laing and Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Committee KBD 1949
The appellant building contractors had been engaged by the Air Ministry to execute works at an aerodrome. They erected on the site, for the purpose of carrying out the contract, offices, garages, canteen for workmen and other structures. Although . .

Cited by:
CitedField Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding CA 1966
The Court considered the rateability of a residential caravan site. The caravans were on wheels and retained their mobility although they were jacked up to keep them stable.
Held: Although a chattel is not a rateable hereditament by itself, it . .
CitedCinderella Rockerfellas Ltd v Rudd (Valuation Officer) CA 11-Apr-2003
The taxpayer appealed against a rating assessment on a barge permanently moored at a riverbank. He claimed that as a chattel, it should not be rated.
Held: The vessel was a chattel, but its occupation could be an occupation of the riverbed. . .
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop Admn 6-Mar-2012
The respondent occupied a tugboat with his family as his home. The appellant authority had sought to charge council tax, saying that it was a dwelling. The boat was not a houseboat but a live-aboard seagoing vessel, registered in the Small Ships . .
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop CA 17-Apr-2013
The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Land

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.181043

VRCC Ltd v French: UTLC 17 Dec 2013

UTLC RATING – Valuation – Veterinary Treatment Centre in converted warehouse – rebus sic stantibus – whether to be valued on gross or net internal area basis – appeal allowed in part – rateable value assessed at andpound;74,000.

[2013] UKUT 627 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.535671

United Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of England v Holborn Borough Council: 1957

The Freemasons sought to be entitled to rating relief as having the purpose of advancing religion. To belong to the Freemasons a person did not need to practise any religion providing he believed in a Supreme Being and lived a moral life. This was viewed as laudable but not the same as advancing religion. It was noted that it might be argued that religion can be advanced by ‘example as well as precept’ but there was no evidence before the Court that the main object of Masons was to go out in the world and, by their example, lead persons to one religion or another. There was ‘no religious instruction, no programme for the persuasion of unbelievers, no religious supervision to see that its members remain active and constant in the various religions they profess, no holding of religious services, no pastoral or missionary work of any kind.’
Held: The Court defined ‘advancing’ religion as meaning ‘to promote it, to spread its message ever wider among mankind; to take some positive steps to sustain and increase religious belief.’ This was said to be able to be done ‘in a variety of ways which may be comprehensively described as pastoral and missionary.’

[1957] 1 WLR 1080, [1957] 3 All ER 281
England and Wales

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.570864

Secerno Ltd and Others v Oxford Magistrates Court and Another: Admn 19 Apr 2011

The applicants each sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrate that he did not have jurisdiction to decline to issue liability notices. They argued that the Council had failed to issue the required notices before placing the properties on the List.
Held: The appeal failed. The role of the Magistrates Court was limited to considering whether liability had arisen following the service of a demand notice under Regulation 4 and a non payment of sums due and demanded on such an application. It was not open to the Magistrates Court (or an Appeal Court) to go behind the list and entertain a challenge to the validity or accuracy of the entry in the rating list upon which the liability order is based, and: ‘the Deputy District Judge was bound to conclude that the sums had become payable. The statutory scheme delivers that result. The two conditions specified in section 43(1) (a) and (b) of the 1988 Act were satisfied: the ratepayers were in occupation of the hereditaments on the days in question and the hereditaments were shown for the days in question in the local non-domestic rating list in force for the relevant years. The ratepayers, that is to say the claimants, were liable to pay an amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 43 of the 1988 Act. The liability for rates and the duty to pay the rates are separate. The liability arises by operation of the primary legislation. The duty to pay arises under the 1989 Regulations. No payment in respect of the liability need be made until a demand notice is served: see regulation 7(6) of the 1989 Regulations. No enforcement action can be taken unless a demand notice has been served.’

Burnett J
[2011] EWHC 1009 (Admin), [2011] RA 247
Bailii
Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2005 42, Local Government Finance Act 1988 41 43
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
CitedNorth Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Deleayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .
CitedCounty and Nimbus Estates Limited v Ealing London Borough Council 1979
. .
CitedVitesse Networks Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v North West Wiltshire Magistrates Court Admn 10-Dec-2009
. .
CitedCounty and Nimbus Estates Limited v Ealing London Borough Council 1979
. .
CitedHackney London Borough Council v Mott and Fairman QBD 7-Jul-1994
Justices have no jurisdiction to check the validity of an entry on the non-domestic rating list. . .

Cited by:
CitedSunderland City Council v Stirling Investment Properties Llp Admn 24-May-2013
The Council appealed by cases stated against dismissal of its summons against the defendant alleging non-payment of non-domestic rates. The property owned by the respondent had been occupied by a tenant, but only by a small equipment box, and the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.432854

JJB Sports Plc, Regina (On the Application of) v Telford and Wrekin Borough Council: Admn 5 Nov 2008

The authority’s demand notice was served later than was practicable. The company now appealed against a liability order.
Held: The ratepayer’s appeal by way of Case Stated was dismissed. ‘demand notices must be served by the relevant authority separately for each year. They can relate to more than one hereditament, but what have been conveniently described in this case as ‘multi-bills’, that is to say one bill demanding payment of the liability relating to more than one financial year, are not within the Regulations. The notices must contain prescribed details and if, by mistake, they do not, but the relevant amounts have nonetheless been demanded under Part II of the Collection Regulations, the validity of the notice is preserved by Regulation 4 of the 2003 Regulations, subject to the billing authority providing any permitted information as soon as practicable.’ and ‘It would, in my judgment, be highly unsatisfactory for the citizen’s liability to pay a tax, or not to pay it, to depend on the administrative details of the organisation of the rating authority in circumstances where the citizen himself cannot find out what the position is.’ However the appellant had suffered no prejudice by the failure. The appeal was dismissed.

Timothy Brennan QC
[2008] EWHC 2870 (Admin), [2009] RA 33, [2009] RA 33
Bailii
Non Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement)(Local Lists) Regulations 1989 4 5, Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLondon and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
Identifying ‘maandatory’ and ‘regulatory’
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .
CitedRegentford Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Shepway District Council Admn 25-Oct-2006
A breach of the statutory duty by the billing authority to serve the notice as soon as practicable does not operate in all cases as a windfall to the person otherwise liable, but the breach precludes a claim to payment and a duty to pay only where . .
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
CitedEncon Insulation Ltd v Nottingham City Council Admn 9-Jun-1999
When the rating authority discovered ratable premises, and issued claims going back in time the test was not whether they were unaware of them earlier, but whether they could have taken steps beforehand to discover the existence of the premises. A . .
CitedPetch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes) CA 8-Jun-1994
The thirty day time limit for the forwarding of a case stated is mandatory. The Court of Appeal has no discretion to extend the time limit. Millett LJ analysed the position by reference to the traditional dichotomy of directory or mandatory . .

Cited by:
CitedNorth Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Deleayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.343953

Leda Properties Ltd, Re: Computer Centre: LT 27 Mar 2009

LT RATING – hereditament – computer centre – whether entry to be deleted from list on ground that incapable of beneficial use – held that it should not be – whether open to appellant on basis of proposal for deletion to contend that RV and descriprion should be altered – held it was not – Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sch 6 para 2; Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) Regulations 1993 reg 3; Rating (Valuation) Act 1999 s 1; Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (England) Regulations 2000 reg 2; Non-Domestic Rating (Alterations and Appeals) Regulations 1993, regs 4A, 5A.

LT George Bartlett QC President
[2009] EWLands RA – 62 – 2006, [2009] RA 165
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sch 6.2, Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) Regulations 1993 3, Rating (Valuation) Act 1999 1, Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (England) Regulations 2000 2, Non-Domestic Rating (Alterations and Appeals) Regulations 1993 4A 5A
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) SC 7-Mar-2018
Air System plant excluded from Rating value
The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes.
Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.341638

Powys County Council v Hurst: Admn 4 Jul 2018

Pension not attachable for Council Tax arrears

Recovery of unpaid council tax – whether pension was ‘earnings’ for attachment of earnings order.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The pension was not available to be attached, and it had exhausted all alternatives to committal.

Hickinbottom, Singh LJJ
[2018] EWHC 1684 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 413
Bailii, WLRD
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
England and Wales

Rating, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.619004

Wilson v Josephine Coll (Listing Officer): Admn 13 Oct 2011

The land owners challenged the re-appearance of their empty and disrepaired dweliinghouse in the valuation list. It had been exempt for twelve months. The appellanat said that the appeal property was not a hereditament as it was not in reasonable repair. The officer submitted that the question of whether a property continues to be a hereditament, according to the relevant legal regime, does not depend on whether any repairs which may be needed can be economically carried out. It was submitted that a dwelling that is capable of repair remains a hereditament even if it would not necessarily be economic to carry out those repairs.
The Panel concluded that: ‘a dwelling cannot be deleted from the valuation list simply because of disrepair, regardless of the extent of that disrepair.’ Singh J said: ‘It seems to me that the tribunal fell into precisely the error of law which the respondent has stressed before me ought not to infect this area of law. They confused the two concepts which the respondent has been at pains to stress to me ought not to be confused, namely the concept of the existence, or continued existence, of a hereditament on the one hand, and the distinct question of the proper valuation of a hereditament on the other hand.’
The decision was erroneous and should be remitted to the tribunal.

Singh J
[2011] EWHC 2824 (Admin), [2012] PTSR 1313
Bailii
Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 43, Local Government Finance Act 1992 22, Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPost Office v Nottingham Council CA 1976
The court provided a definition of what is a hereditament. Browne LJ said: ‘the question is whether the building as a building is so far completed as to be capable of occupation or ready for occupation for the purposes for which it is intended – as . .
CitedRegina v East Sussex Valuation Tribunal Ex Parte Silverstone QBD 10-May-1996
There were two flats, which the applicant bought with a view to carrying out extensive repairs and converting into one unit. This went only slowly, the work being done by the applicant himself. The applicant had in fact been living in the property, . .
CitedBurke v Broomhead Admn 2009
The court heard applications relating to the inclusion of the property in the valuation list, including an assertion that the tribunal had wrongly interpreted the valuation evidence presented to it in arriving at its decision. The claimant said that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.466305

Reeves (VO) v Tobias and Others: UTLC 22 Nov 2010

RATING – hereditament – whether car parking spaces in a car park licensed to residential occupiers and used by them in connection with nearby residential premises were domestic property and so exempt from rating – held they were not – appeal allowed – Local Government Finance Act 1988, s 66(1)

[2010] UKUT 411 (LC), [2011] 16 EG 80, [2011] RA 149
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.569613

BMC Properties and Management Ltd v Jackson (VO): UTLC 11 Mar 2014

bmc_jacksonUTLC0314

UTLC RATING – alteration of rating list by valuation officer – effective date of alteration – list inaccurate on day of compilation by reason of omission of hereditament – date on which hereditament became liable to rating not reasonably ascertainable but before compilation of list – Reg. 14(2), (5) Non-domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 – appeal dismissed

Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President
[2014] UKUT 93 (LC)
Bailii
Non-domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 14(2) 14(5)
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.522659

Ash (Valuation Officer): LT 29 Sep 2008

LT RATING – valuation – 2005 list – outdoor market authorised by Royal Charter and operated by local authority – whether shortened profits method of valuation appropriate – held that it was -appeal allowed – RV increased from andpound;6,100 to andpound;14,300.

[2008] EWLands RA – 64 – 2007
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.278623

Reeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop: CA 17 Apr 2013

The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that he occupied only a tidal fore and aft mooring protected by a pit.
Held: The appeal failed. To be enterable in the list, the property had to be both a heraditament and a domestic property. As to the stautes applicable: ‘If prizes are to be offered for legislative gobbledegook then the foregoing would surely qualify. Having undertaken that trawl through these various statutes I confess to my shame I am no wiser nor would any ordinary citizen be without help from the Practice Note.’
‘The Tribunal had failed to recognise that the time Randy and his family were moored up in the estuary was not simply a factor of weight but the crucial, and on the facts of this case, the determinative factor. This family had made their home in their boat moored on the estuary for some two years by the time of the appeal before the Tribunal . . In the circumstances of this case the duration of two years is so overwhelming a factor that without any adequate explanation of how and why that factor was outweighed by others, the Tribunal, in my judgment, erred in law.’

Hughes, Patten LJJ, Sir Alan Ward
[2013] EWCA Civ 362
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1992 3(2) 64 66, General Rate Act 1967 115(1), Rating (Caravan and Boats) Act 1996
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop Admn 6-Mar-2012
The respondent occupied a tugboat with his family as his home. The appellant authority had sought to charge council tax, saying that it was a dwelling. The boat was not a houseboat but a live-aboard seagoing vessel, registered in the Small Ships . .
CitedForrest v Overseers of Greenwich 1858
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 . .
CitedCorey v Bristow HL 1877
The House considered the liability to be rated to the relief of the poor of the parish within which lay that part of the river where a derrick hulk was moored.
Held: Lord Hatherley said: ‘As Lord Campbell expressed it in one of the cases last . .
CitedWestminster City Council v Southern Railway Co HL 1936
Subject to special enactments, people are treated as occupiers of land, land being understood as including not only the surface of the earth but all strata above or below. The occupier, not the land, is rateable; but the occupier is rateable in . .
CitedJohn Laing and Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Committee KBD 1949
The appellant building contractors had been engaged by the Air Ministry to execute works at an aerodrome. They erected on the site, for the purpose of carrying out the contract, offices, garages, canteen for workmen and other structures. Although . .
CitedLondon County Council v Wilkins (Valuation Officer) HL 1957
Four builders’ moveable huts, which had been erected as temporary structures on a site for 18 months, only one of which was moved from one part of the site to the other during that period, were claimed chattels and therefore not rateable.
CitedHilleshog Sugar Beet Breeding Co Ltd v Wilke LT 1971
hilleshopLT1971
Parcels of land were occupied for 9-10 months in a year.
Held: This was not too transient a period to establish a rateable occupation notwithstanding that in subsequent years the occupation passed on to the other land.
Sir Michael Rowe . .
CitedCinderella Rockerfellas Ltd v Rudd (Valuation Officer) CA 11-Apr-2003
The taxpayer appealed against a rating assessment on a barge permanently moored at a riverbank. He claimed that as a chattel, it should not be rated.
Held: The vessel was a chattel, but its occupation could be an occupation of the riverbed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.472637

Robinson Brothers (Brewers) Ltd v Houghton and Chester-Le-Street Assessment Committee: CA 1937

The enquiry which set the value of land for rating was economic not legal in nature. The passing rent, if determined by the operation of the market, would carry significant weight in that process.
Scott LJ said: Where the particular hereditament is let at what is plainly a rack rent or where similar hereditaments in similar economic sites are so let, so that they are truly comparable, that evidence is the best evidence, and for that reason is alone admissible; indirect evidence is excluded not because it is not logically relevant to the economic inquiry, but because it is not the best evidence. (3.) Where such direct evidence is not available, for example, if the rents of other premises are shown to be not truly comparable, resort must necessarily be had to indirect evidence from which it is possible to estimate the probable rent which the hypothetical tenant would pay. (4.) This kind of estimating is a skilled business, and it is here especially that the role of the skilled valuer comes in. His employment is plainly contemplated by all the rating statutes of the last hundred years and has always been the practice in all disputes upon quantum of assessment, but, above all, wherever resort to indirect sources for assessing value is necessary. (5.) In weighing up the evidence bearing upon value, it is the duty of the valuer to take into consideration every intrinsic quality and every intrinsic circumstance which tends to push the rental value either up or down, just because it is relevant to the valuation and ought therefore to be cast into the scales of the balance before he looks to see the resultant figure on the dial at which the pointer finally rests . . (8.) The rent to be ascertained is the figure at which the hypothetical landlord and tenant would, in the opinion of the valuer or the tribunal, come to terms as a result of bargaining for that hereditament, in the light of competition or its absence in both demand and supply, as a result of ‘the higgling of the market’. I call this the true rent because it corresponds to real value.

Scott LJ
[1937] 2 KB 445, [1938] AC 321
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedOrange PCS v Alan Roy Bradford (Valuation Officer) CA 17-Feb-2004
The claimant challenged the rating of the land it had used for the erection of a mobile ohone mast.
Held: Even though the company had the statutory right to place a mast in this location and without payment, for rating purposes the officer . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.193772

James and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Feb 1986

The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a mechanism for the compulsory transfer of the freehold interest in the house and the land to the tenant, with financial compensation to the landlord, cannot in itself be qualified in the circumstances as an inappropriate or disproportionate method for readjusting the law so as to meet the proper concern for the equitable distribution of ownership. There must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. ‘[T]he taking of property in the public interest without payment of compensation is treated as justifiable only in exceptional circumstances not relevant for present purposes. As far as Article 1 is concerned, the protection of the right to property it affords would be largely illusory and ineffective in the absence of any equivalent principle.’ and ‘Article 1 does not, however, guarantee a right to full compensation in all cases, since legitimate objectives of ‘public interest’, such as pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value.’
The court discussed a nation’s discretion as to what was in the public interest: ‘Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is ‘in the public interest’. Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment both of the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures of deprivation of property and of the remedial action to be taken. Here, as in other fields to which the safeguards of the Convention extend, the national authorities accordingly enjoy a certain margin of appreciation.
Furthermore, the notion of ‘public interest’ is necessarily extensive. In particular, as the Commission noted, the decision to enact laws expropriating property will commonly involve consideration of political, economic and social issues on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ widely. The Court, finding it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one, will respect the legislature’s judgment as to what is ‘in the public interest’ unless that judgment be manifestly without reasonable foundation.’

Ryssdal, P
8793/79, (1986) 8 EHRR 123, [1986] ECHR 2, Series A no 98, [1986] RVR 139, [1986] RVR 139
Worldlii, Bailii
Leasehold Reform Act 1967, European Convention on Human Rights P1-1
Human Rights
Citing:
CitedMarckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
CitedSporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 23-Sep-1982
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct . .

Cited by:
ConsideredMing Pao Newspapers Limited and others v The Attorney General of Hong Kong PC 20-May-1996
(Hong Kong) A newspaper had been ordered to reveal the source of a story wit regard to a corruption investigation. The statute required such disclosure only with regard to a named individual, and in this case no suspects name was yet known. The . .
CitedM, Petitioner OHCS 11-Jul-2002
The petitioner challenged his detention and treatment as a mental patient under the 1984 Act, claiming that his human rights to a fair trial had been infringed. It was argued that since the Act automatically dispensed with his common law right to . .
CitedMatthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
CitedCarson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
CitedFisher and Another v English Nature Admn 4-Jul-2003
The claimants were trustees of land. The Respondent had notified the Secretary of State that they considered that part of the land satisfied the criteria to be certifed as being of special scientific interest. They now intended to confirm the . .
CitedStockholms Forsakrings- Och Skadestandsjuridik Ab v Sweden ECHR 16-Sep-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) ; Violation of P1-1 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and . .
CitedThe Bahamas District of the Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas and Others v The Hon Vernon J Symonette M P Speaker of the House of Assembly and 7 Others (No 70 of 1998) and Ormond Hilton Poitier and 14 Others v The Methodist Church PC 26-Jul-2000
PC (The Bahamas) The Methodist community had split, eventually leading to a new Act. Others now challenged the constitionality of the Act, and that lands had been transferred in breach of the constitution.
CitedP, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
CitedTrailer and Marina (Leven) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature QBD 6-Feb-2004
The claimant owned land which contained a canal. After disuse it had become subject an order declaring it a site of special scientific intrest. The owner complained that this removed his right to develop uses of the land and infringed his human . .
CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Kehoe CA 5-Mar-2004
The claimant had applied to the Child Support Agncy for maintenance. They failed utterly to obtain payment, and she complained now that she was denied the opportunity by the 1991 Act to take court proceedings herself.
Held: The denial of . .
CitedGita Ram v Baskinder Ram,Solinder Ram, Monder Ram and Maurice William Russell CA 5-Nov-2004
A bankrupt had, before his bankruptcy disposed of his share in a house at an undervalue. His wife appealed an order that the share disposed of should vest entirely in the trustee in bankruptcy. Matrimonial proceedings had also been commenced.
CitedTrailer and Marina (Leven) Ltd, Regina (ex parte) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that the 1981 Act, as amended, interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its possession, namely a stretch of canal which had been declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, with the effect that it was unusable. . .
CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
CitedKehoe, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 14-Jul-2005
The applicant contended that the 1991 Act infringed her human rights in denying her access to court to obtain maintenance for her children.
Held: The applicant had no substantive right to take part in the enforcement process in domestic law . .
CitedPM v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-2005
A father complained that tax deductions which were granted to married fathers but not to unmarried fathers were discriminatory. He had paid maintenance for his daughter, but was not allowed to set the payments off against his income tax in the way . .
CitedCampbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
CitedIn re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
CitedCadogan and others v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd, Howard de Walden Estates Limited v Aggio and others HL 25-Jun-2008
In each case all or part of a building was let by a head-lease and then as self-contained units under sub-leases. The head lessees had served notices under the 1993 Act requiring new leases. The freeholder denied that they were qualifying tenants, . .
CitedAnimal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport HL 12-Mar-2008
The applicant, a non-profit company who campaigned against animal cruelty, sought a declaration of incompatibility for section 321(2) of the 2003 Act, which prevented adverts with political purposes, as an unjustified restraint on the right of . .
CitedEarl Cadogan v Pitts and Wang; Similar HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered the basis of valuation on an acquisition of the freehold reversion of a lease under the 1967 Act of the three elements, the rent, vacant possession after the lease, and the marriage or hope value of the two interests when . .
CitedScopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
CitedBank Mellat v HM Treasury QBD 11-Jun-2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .
CitedMGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
CitedBull and Bull v Hall and Preddy CA 10-Feb-2012
The appellants owned a guesthouse. They appealed from being found in breach of the Regulations. They had declined to honour a booking by the respondents of a room upon learning that they were a homosexual couple. The appellants had said that they . .
CitedHumphreys v Revenue and Customs SC 16-May-2012
Separated parents shared the care of their child. The father complained that all the Child Tax Credit was given to the mother.
Held: The appeal failed. Although the rule does happen to be indirectly discriminatory against fathers, the . .
CitedBarnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
CitedSalvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
CitedCusack v London Borough of Harrow SC 19-Jun-2013
The landowner practised from property in Harrow. The former garden had now for many years been used as a forecourt open to the highway, for parking cars of staff and clients. Cars crossed the footpath to gain access, and backing out into the road . .
CitedRecovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales) SC 9-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered.
Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence . .
CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
CitedTigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Landlord and Tenant, Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.164955

Burvill v Jones (Valuation Officer): UTLC 25 Mar 2013

burvill_jonesUTLC2013

UTLC RATING – valuation – MOT test centre – rebus sic stantibus – use of comparable warehouse rents – effect of business relocation from Olympics site – low emission zone – vehicle scrappage scheme – use of adjoining property as a waste transfer and recycling depot – appeal allowed in part – rateable value assessed at andpound;14,500 – Local Government Finance Act 1988 Schedule 6 para 2(7)

[2013] UKUT 101 (LC)
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.472937

Royal College of Nursing v Borough of St Marylebone: CA 27 Oct 1959

The College sought exemption from rates in respect of a nurses’ home saying that its objects made it a charitable organisation. It was not conducted for profit, but appeared to have two main purposes.
Held: Each of the purposes must be charitable for the exemption to apply. The one at issue was the object ‘to promote the advance of nursing as a profession in all or any of its branches’,

Morris, Romer, Willmer LJJ
[1959] EWCA Civ 1, [1959] 3 All ER 663, [1959] 1 WLR 1077
Bailii
Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 8
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedOverseers of the Savoy v Art Union of London Limited QBD 1894
AL Smith LJ considered the objects of the company: ‘If the other object be only a means to the one end . . then the Society has a sole and exclusive object and not another object subsidiary thereto’. . .
CitedGeneral Nursing Council for England and Wales v St Marylebone Borough Council HL 1959
The court considered how to decide whether the Council could claim exemption from rates.
Held: The court should restrict its consideration to the purposes as set out and not look to the actual activities. The relevant clause had as its main . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.262822

Regentford Ltd v Thanet District Council: Admn 18 Feb 2004

The council sought to enforce payment of arrears of council tax. The company responded that proceedings had not been begun in time. The company contended that time ran from the day when the council set the precept. The regulations said that time ran from the date of service of the notification of liability served on the respondent. The first would have been out of time, but the second was not, and the action could proceed.
Held: A failure to serve the notice as soon as practicable did not operate as a bar to recovery of the tax, unless the breach had occasioned some procedural or substantive prejudice.
Lightman J said: ‘The statutory duty is imposed at least in substantial part for the protection of those from whom the billing authority may seek payment of council tax. The notice is required to enable the recipient to know that a claim may be made for payment and accordingly to take immediate steps to prepare and assemble any necessary evidence to establish that there is not a duty to pay . . and to arrange his finances to make payment.’

Lightman J
[2004] EWHC 246 (Admin), Times 04-Mar-2004, Gazette 18-Mar-2004, [2004] RA 113
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1992, Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
England and Wales
Citing:
DistinguishedEncon Insulation Ltd v Nottingham City Council Admn 9-Jun-1999
When the rating authority discovered ratable premises, and issued claims going back in time the test was not whether they were unaware of them earlier, but whether they could have taken steps beforehand to discover the existence of the premises. A . .

Cited by:
CitedNorth Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Deleayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Local Government

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.193708

Sunderland City Council v Stirling Investment Properties Llp: Admn 24 May 2013

The Council appealed by cases stated against dismissal of its summons against the defendant alleging non-payment of non-domestic rates. The property owned by the respondent had been occupied by a tenant, but only by a small equipment box, and the respondent argued that it was entitled to a period of six months without rates liability under the 2008 Regulations upon it becoming empty.

Wilkie J
[2013] EWHC 1413 (Admin)
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988, Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) Regulations 2008& 4(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedJohn Laing and Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Committee KBD 1949
The appellant building contractors had been engaged by the Air Ministry to execute works at an aerodrome. They erected on the site, for the purpose of carrying out the contract, offices, garages, canteen for workmen and other structures. Although . .
CitedSecerno Ltd and Others v Oxford Magistrates Court and Another Admn 19-Apr-2011
The applicants each sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrate that he did not have jurisdiction to decline to issue liability notices. They argued that the Council had failed to issue the required notices before placing the properties . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510080

Regina v East Sussex Valuation Tribunal Ex Parte Silverstone: QBD 10 May 1996

There were two flats, which the applicant bought with a view to carrying out extensive repairs and converting into one unit. This went only slowly, the work being done by the applicant himself. The applicant had in fact been living in the property, although he said it was vacant for about three months after he bought it. The property concerned was included in the initial valuation list as two separate dwellings, both of which were placed in band C, but in July 1993 the applicant made a proposal to alter the list on the basis that the dwellings should have been included in the valuation list as one entry. The applicant submitted that the dwelling did not, at the relevant date, comply with the statutory assumptions which are set out in Regulation 6.
Held: Conversion of two houses to one requires a new valuation, not an amalgamation. Nevertheless, the simple question before the court was one of law, namely whether the assumptions in that legislation are rebuttable. Carnwath J concluded that they were not rebuttable. He said that an assumption is by definition a hypothesis which may be adopted whether or not it is in fact true.
Carnwath J
Times 10-May-1996, [1996] RVR 203
Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWilson v Josephine Coll (Listing Officer) Admn 13-Oct-2011
The land owners challenged the re-appearance of their empty and disrepaired dweliinghouse in the valuation list. It had been exempt for twelve months. The appellanat said that the appeal property was not a hereditament as it was not in reasonable . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.86620

London Borough of Waltham Forest, Regina (On the Application of) v Waltham Forest Magistrates’ Court and Yem Yom Ventures Limited: Admn 4 Nov 2008

David Holgate QC
[2008] EWHC 3579 (Admin), [2009] RA 181
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances CA 1973
The claimant sought to bring his claim under a provision which required a complaint to the industrial tribunal to be made within four weeks of the dismissal unless the employment tribunal was satisfied that this was not ‘practicable’. He did not . .

Cited by:
CitedNorth Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Deleayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.372687

The Mersey Docks And Harbour Board v Jones And Others, Churchwardens And Overseers Of The Poor Of The Parish Of Liverpool: 1860

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. and C. 61, 9 D. and 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, andc.–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.
Erle CJ
[1860] EngR 263, (1860) 8 CB NS 114, (1860) 144 ER 1108
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.285102

Thomas v Witney Aquatic Co Ltd: LT 1972

A clubhouse floated upon a lake over which the ratepayer had rights of use for sporting and boating activities and to maintain a floating clubhouse which was moored to three steel barges in turn moored to the land, made fast to the land by two wire hawsers and kept at a fixed distance from the land by two gangways, being moved in winter months to an island in the lake. The disputed hereditament was described as ‘lake, clubhouse and premises’.
Held: The floating clubhouse was a chattel enjoyed with the land and therefore rateable as part of the hereditament.
[1972] RA 31
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCinderella Rockerfellas Ltd v Rudd (Valuation Officer) CA 11-Apr-2003
The taxpayer appealed against a rating assessment on a barge permanently moored at a riverbank. He claimed that as a chattel, it should not be rated.
Held: The vessel was a chattel, but its occupation could be an occupation of the riverbed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.181047

Re Truro College Haven: LT 10 Apr 2007

RATING – College premises – open learning centre – mode and category of occupation distinguished from office use – contractor’s basis of valuation rejected – comparative rental basis preferred – appeal allowed
[2007] EWLands RA – 74 – 2005
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.251196

London Borough of Newham v Rad Phase 1 Type B Property Company NO1 Ltd (Rating – Procedure – Service of Completion Notice): UTLC 28 Jul 2020

RATING – PROCEDURE – service of completion notice on 26 June 2019 – whether VTE has the power to determine a completion date later than three months from the date of the notice – whether the VTE has the power to quash a completion notice – appeal allowed – completion date of 11 May 2020 determined – s46 and schedule 4A, Local Government Finance Act 1988
[2020] UKUT 203 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.652819

The Queen v The Overseers Of The Township Of Bilston: QBD 15 Nov 1865

On a case stated by Quarter Sessions, the gross rental of a house was found to be a certain sum.
Held: That in ascertaining the rateable value to the poor-rate, a deduction from this gross rental ought not to be allowed in respect of a payment made by the landlord for water laid on and supplied to the house by public commissioners, such supply and payment being optional.
[1865] EngR 732, (1865) 6 B and S 908, (1865) 122 ER 1428, (1865-1866) LR 1 QB 18, [1865] UKLawRpKQB 20
Commonlii, Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.281644

Rex v Shoreditch Assessment Committee, Ex parte Morgan: CA 6 Jul 1910

(At KBD and CA) A ratepayer claimed that the value of his hereditament had been reduced in value. Pursuant to section 47 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, he addressed a written requisition to the overseers. The section provided that: ‘If in the course of any year the value of any hereditament is increased by the addition of . . any building, or is from any cause increased or reduced in value . . (1) The overseers of the parish . . on the written requisition of . . any ratepayer . . shall, send to the assessment committee a provisional list containing the gross and rateable value as so increased or reduced of such hereditament.’ The section further provided that a person sending a requisition had to send a copy of it to the clerk to the assessment committee. The section further provided that if within fourteen days after the service of the requisition on the overseers they made default in sending the provisional list, then the clerk to the assessment committee was required forthwith to summon the assessment committee: ‘and the assessment committee shall appoint a person to make such provisional list, in the same manner as is in this Act provided in the case of the overseers failing to transmit a valuation list.’
After the ratepayer had addressed his written requisition to the overseers they failed, as required, to send a provisional list to the assessment committee. Because of the default of the overseers the assessment committee was summoned. The assessment committee instead of appointing a person to make a provisional list proceeded to consider the matter themselves and after hearing the ratepayer’s representative passed a resolution that they found as a question of fact that the premises had not been reduced in value during the year so as to warrant the committee appointing a person to make a provisional list.
Held: The ratepayer was entitled to a mandamus commanding the assessment committee to appoint a person to make a provisional list. Provided that there was prima facie evidence of a reduction in value, as it was held that there was, then it seemed plain on the wording of the section that the assessment committee were under obligation to ‘appoint a person to make such provisional list.’
Cozens-Hardy MR explained: ‘The ascertainment of the fact of reduction cannot be a condition precedent to the putting in force of the machinery by which it may be ascertained whether in truth there has been any reduction in value.’
Farwell LJ said that the ascertainment of the proper limits of the tribunal’s power of decision is a task for the court: ‘Subjection in this respect to the High Court is a necessary and inseparable incident for all tribunals of limited jurisdiction; for the existence of the limit necessitates an authority to determine and enforce it: it is a contradiction in terms to create a tribunal with limited jurisdiction and unlimited power to determine such limit at its own will and pleasure – such a tribunal would be autocratic, not limited – and it is immaterial whether the decision of the inferior tribunal on the question of the existence or non-existence of its own jurisdictions is founded on law or fact.’
Cozens-Hardy MR, Farwell LJ
[1910] 2 KB 859, [1910] UKLawRpKQB 121
Valuation (Metropolis) Act 1869
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAnisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
All Public Law Challenges are For a Nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.653281

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd: CA 31 Jul 2020

Whether companies operating a scheme to enable property owners to avoid liability for national non-domestic rates (‘NNDR’ or ‘business rates’) in respect of unoccupied commercial properties, in the form of what is referred to in the judgment below as ‘Scheme 3’, should be wound up on public interest grounds because it is said that their business model ‘lacks commercial probity in their operation of Scheme Three which misuses and/or abuses and/or subverts the insolvency legislation and process’.
[2020] EWCA Civ 1017
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.652902

Ratford v Northavon District Council: CA 1986

The reality of the agency of a receiver is reflected in the continuity, after the appointment of receivers, of the rateable occupation of the mortgagor through the agency of the receivers. The possession of an agent is to be attributed to that of his principal for rating purposes. The facts that the receivers had had representatives on the company’s premises from time to time during the receivership and that the receivers had managed the company’s business and controlled its assets were ‘quite consistent with the company remaining in legal possession and rateable occupation of the premises’. As to the authorities: ‘they all clearly show that the mere fact that a receiver has entered upon the company’s premises for the purpose of managing and carrying on its business does not necessarily mean that the company has been dispossessed or has ceased to occupy the premises for rating purposes. If it is to be shown that a change of rateable occupation has occurred, this conclusion must be derived from the terms of the receiver’s appointment or from what he has actually done, or from both together.’ The receivers having demonstrated that their appointment did not oblige them to take possession, and that in carrying out their duties they were deemed to be the agents of the company: ‘the onus . . shifted to the council to show that the receivers had dispossessed the company, or, to put it another way, to show that the quality of any possession of the premises which the receivers might have enjoyed was not that of mere agents. For possession held by a person in his capacity as agent is in law the possession of his principal.’ ‘It is a general principle of rating law that where an agent is required to occupy a hereditament in order to secure the better performance of his duties as agent, his occupation is for rating purposes ordinarily treated as that of his principal. If, on the other hand, an agent occupies his principal’s property otherwise than in his capacity as agent, the occupation will be treated as his own for rating purposes.’
Slade LJ, Ralph Gibson LJ and Sir John Megaw
[1987] QB 357
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRe Marriage Neave and Co CA 1896
The court considered the liability for rates of a company’s receiver: ‘The argument that, because a receiver and manager is appointed, then ipso facto the company or persons carrying on business are turned out, is neither reasonable nor plausible. . .
CitedNational Provincial Bank of England v United Electric Theatres 1916
. .
CitedGyton v Palmour 1944
. .

Cited by:
CitedIn re Beck Foods Ltd: Boston Borough Council v Rees and Bennett CA 20-Dec-2001
The council appealed a decision that the administrative receivers of a company were not liable personally for the non-domestic rates otherwise incurred by a company during the receivership.
Held: The activities of the receiver or manager were . .
CitedSilven Properties Limited, Chart Enterprises Incorporated v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, Vooght, Harris CA 21-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages from mortgagees who had sold their charged properties as receivers. They said they had failed to sell at a proper value. They asked whether the express appointment in the mortgage of receivers as agents of the mortgagor . .
MentionedRhodes v Allied Dunbar Pension Services Ltd CA 1989
The intermediate tenant had charged the lease to the bank, which appointed receivers. Both the sub rent and the head rent fell into arrears. The head landlord then served a notice direct on the subtenant requiring him to pay the rent direct to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.183442

Kingston Union v Metropolitan Water Board: HL 1926

The principle for valuation of properties for rating was to estimate ‘the rent at which the hereditaments might reasonably be expected to let from year to year’. But in applying that principle, so simple in appearance, to certain classes of hereditaments, great difficulties were encountered, and it was found necessary for rating experts and the courts to have recourse to hypotheses of a more or less violent character. The mains and other works might produce no rent at all, for no person would wish to become the tenant of them; but when seen as part of a great undertaking extending over a large and populous area, might be quite indispensable to the undertakers (who must be regarded as possible tenants) and so might command an extortionate rent. For a fair assessment a formula was required which . . would not compel the undertakers to pay rates on an aggregate sum exceeding the whole yearly value of their undertaking; and accordingly rating surveyors, soon after the passing of the Act of 1836, began to assess waterworks and other like concerns, such as railways, canals, gasworks, etc, upon the basis of the profits earned by the whole undertaking. The profits basis of valuation was a means of estimating the rent that the hypothetical tenant would pay.
Viscount Cave LC
[1926] AC 331
Parochial Assessments Act 1836 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Central Valuation Officer and another ex parte Edison First Power Limited HL 10-Apr-2003
Powergen sold a property to Edison. Powergen paid rates under a separate statutory rating regime, and paid an additional thirteen million pounds under an apportionment. Edison later complained that in being rated itself, the authorities had . .
CitedMilford Haven Conservancy Board v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1976
The Minister had power to make provision by order for determining rateable values ‘by such method as may be so specified’. The formula prescribed by the Minister for dock undertakings was based on 4% of their receipts, including receipts from some . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.182919

G Greig (Inspector of Poor, City Parish of Edinburgh) v Heriot’s Hospital: SCS 14 Nov 1865

This was a case in which the Inspector of Poor of the City Parish of Edinburgh claimed poor rates from the Governors of Heriot’s Hospital, in respect of those lands upon which the hospital stood, and the gardens, plantations, and parks attached to the same.
[1865] SLR 1 – 27 – 2
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.575131

Worthington and Another v Hulton: QBD 20 Nov 1865

The Public Health Act (11 and 12 Viet. c. 63), s. 89, enacts that rates may be made ‘retrospectively, in order to raise money for the payment of charges and expenses which may have been incurred at any time within six months before the making of the rate’
Held: that the Court might grant a mandamus ordering a rate to be made in order to satisfy a judgment obtained within six months before the claim for the writ, though the action, in which the judgment was obtained, was commenced more than six months after the right of action accrued, provided the delay is excused and shewn not to have been undue. The plaintiff in 1858 entered into contracts with the defendants, a local board of health, for the execution of works for the board, to be paid for out of money to be collected from those on whom the works were chargeable under the Public Health Act. The contracts were duly performed by the plaintiff. The notices given by the defendants turned out bad, and many of those who would otherwise have been liable refused to pay the sums assessed upon them. This became known to the plaintiff in February, 1860, and he then made a demand on the defendants. They were in hopes of being able to collect the money, notwithstanding the badness of the notices, and 800 pounds was in fact collected and paid over to the plaintiff, the last payment being in November, 1860, leaving a balance of more than 3000 pounds. due to the plaintiff, and he commenced an action against the defendants early in the following December. Judgment, was obtained by the plaintiff, and within six months he commenced an action, claiming a writ of mandamus commanding the defendants to levy a rate to satisfy the judgment.
Held: that the delay in commencing the original action was excused and shewn not to be undue, and that a peremptory writ might be granted.
[1865] EngR 738, (1865) 6 B and S 943, (1865) 122 ER 1441, (1865-1866) LR 1 QB 63, [1865] UKLawRpKQB 25
Commonlii, Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.281650