Non domestic rates imposed on a business property during the period of its occupation by the administrator in a company’s insolvency were properly expenses of the administration.
David Richards J
[2007] EWHC 400 (Ch), Times 06-Apr-2007
Insolvency (Amendment) Rules (2003 No 1730)
England and Wales
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249388
LT RATING – hereditament – alteration of rating list – office building extended floor by floor into new adjoining building – series of alterations to list to reflect each extension – whether each extension had effect of creating new hereditament – whether alterations valid – effective date of alterations – appeals allowed – Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) Regulations 1992 reg 3 – Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists an Appeals) Regulations 1993 reg 13A
[2007] EWLands RA – 66 – 2004
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249410
[1995] EWHC Admin 4
England and Wales
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.136189
The appellants sought partial exemption from rates on its premises. The Corporation challenged their charitable status. The society’s object was to encourage and provide facilities for cremation.
Held: The object was charitable.
Lord Reid said that it was not now necessary to produce evidence so as to show that the object was for the public benefit, and also that, this being so, the public benefit was not subverted because there was or might also be a profit or benefit to individuals involved in the prosecution of the objects: ‘But the appellants must also show that the public benefit is of a kind within the spirit and intendment of the Statute of Elizabeth I. The preamble specifies a number of objects which were then recognised as charitable. But in more recent times a wide variety of other objects have come to be recognised as also being charitable. The courts appear to have proceeded first by seeking some analogy between an object mentioned in the preamble and the object with regard to which they had to reach a decision. And then they appear to have gone further and to have been satisfied if they could find an analogy between an object already held to be charitable and the new object claimed to be charitable. And this gradual extension has proceeded so far that there are few modern reported cases where a bequest or donation was made or an institution was being carried on for a clearly specified object which was for the benefit of the public at large and not of individuals, and yet the object was held not to be within the spirit and intendment of the Statute of Elizabeth I. Counsel in the present case were invited to search for any case having even the remotest resemblance to this case in which an object was held to be for the public benefit but yet not to be within that spirit and intendment. But no such case could be found.’
Lord Upjohn said: ‘Upon the first point it must be remembered that Lord Macnaghten’s classification was taken from Sir Samuel Romilly’s argument in Morice v. Bishop of Durham 162 years ago when the great majority of the inhabitants of the country were living in conditions which to-day would be regarded as of the utmost squalor. The concept of purposes beneficial to the community might then appear to have the qualities of a class and so perhaps, to a lesser extent, in 1891. This so-called fourth class is incapable of further definition and can today hardly be regarded as more than a portmanteau to receive those objects which enlightened opinion would regard as qualifying for consideration under the second heading.’
As to the preamble to the 1601 Act: ‘While it may seem almost incredible to anyone not familiar with this branch of the English law that this should still be taken as the test, it is undoubtedly the accepted test, though only in a very wide and broad sense, well illustrated by the observations of Lord Greene M.R. in In re Strakosch [1949] Ch 529 . .’
He concluded, with some skepticism: ‘My Lords, I conclude by saying that the authorities show that the ‘spirit and intendment’ of the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth have been stretched almost to breaking point. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries this was often due to a desire on the part of the courts to save the intentions of the settlor or testator from failure from some technical rule of law. Now that it is used so frequently to avoid the common man’s liability to rates or taxes, this generous trend of the law may one day require reconsideration.’
Lord Reid, Lord Guest, Lord Upjohn, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Pearson
[1967] UKHL 3, [1968] AC 138, [1967] 3 All ER 215
Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962, Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1888 13
Scotland
Cited – Morice v The Bishop of Durham CA 26-Mar-1804
Bequest, in trust for such objects of benevolence and liberality as the trustee in his own discretion shall most approve, cannot be supported as a charitable Legacy ; and is therefore a Trust for the next of kin.
Ann Cracherade by her Will, . .
Cited – Helena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248565
LT RATING – valuation – 2000 rating list – shop and premises – whether premises assumed to be open plan rebus sic stantibus – whether tone of the list established, requiring parts of shop to be valued as ancillary office – appeal dismissed
[2006] EWLands RA – 27 – 2006
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247662
[2006] EWHC 3052 (Admin)
Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246771
The company appealed against the entry in to the lists of their cabling network systems.
Mummery, Sedley, Lloyd LJJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1339
England and Wales
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245409
LT RATING – valuation – 2000 rating list – private members club – scaffolding to neighbouring building works severely impeding access – previous assessment omitting value of part of hereditament – whether assessment to be deleted … deduction appropriate to reflect disability relevance of previous underassessment (assessment reduced temporarily to RV andpound;5,500.
Rose FRICS
[2006] EWLands RA – 57 – 2005
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245452
For the purposes of rating, where, in addition to legal possession, ‘use and enjoyment’ of the hereditament is required to establish occupation so as to give rise to liability.
[1944] KB 412
England and Wales
Cited – Bushell and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Licensing Justices and Another HL 15-Feb-2006
Licensees appealed against the grant of judicial review of decisions granting special removal of old on-licences for premises. The grant had been challenged on the basis that the magistrates had had no jurisdiction to make the award because the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.238878
Appeal re council tax liability.
James Goudie QC
[2006] EWHC 1700 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243305
Rating – Hereditament – Two Floors In Office Building Stripped To Shell
[2019] UKUT 136 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638284
[1979] RA 63
England and Wales
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.432919
Mr Justice Collins
[2006] EWHC 1019 (Admin)
Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241775
Rating – Alteration of Rating List – Material Change of Circumstances
[2020] UKUT 321 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.656351
Rating – Valuation – Material Change In Circumstance
[2019] UKUT 166 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638283
RATING – valuation – offices – rent – assessments – tone of the list – greater weight given to assessments – appeal dismissed.
[2005] EWLands RA – 47 – 2005
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239346
Rix, Maurice Kay LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse
[2006] EWCA Civ 203, [2007] Bus LR 813
England and Wales
Cited – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238947
Council Tax appeal.
Lindsay J
[2005] EWHC 2974 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238180
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 arrangements for use by ratepayer of these fibres – whether ratepayer in occupation of fibres – whether fibres part of ratepayer’s hereditament – held ratepayer in occupation of fibres and fibres part of its hereditament
[2005] EWLands RA – 50 – 2004
Appeal from – Vtesse Networks Ltd v Bradford (Valuation Officer) CA 19-Oct-2006
The company appealed against the entry in to the lists of their cabling network systems. . .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Bradford (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. . .
At CA (1) – 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 . .
At CA (1) – Bradford (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.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236476
What is the correct approach in law to the rating of the site of an automated teller machine in a supermarket, shop, or petrol filling station?
[2018] EWCA Civ 2472
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.628693
Leveson J
[2004] EWHC 929 (Admin)
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226870
Harbour – Dues Leviable – Clyde Navigation Consolidation Act 1858 (21 and 22 Vict. c. 149), secs. 98 and 9
By an Act of 1770 the magistrates of Glasgow were empowered to levy rates on goods, including timber, ‘carried in and upon the river,’ so far as it was within their jurisdiction, the dues to be paid ‘on all timber or wood either carried in boats or other vessels, or floated in or upon the river,’ and rates were levied by them for a long period. In 1840 that Act was repealed by an Act which provided that duties should be levied ‘on all goods carried or conveyed on the river Clyde within the limits hereinafter mentioned.’ A new scale was then imposed, but no change was made in the list of goods on which dues were to be levied. There was no express provision in that statute for levying dues in respect of timber which had been brought from abroad and was floated up a side channel of the river to timber-ponds which were within the ‘river’ as defined by the statutes. The Clyde Navigation Consolidation Act 1858 repealed the Act of 1840, and sec. 98 enacted that the Trustees should be entitled to levy on and in respect of ‘all goods shipped or unshipped in the river or harbour the rates specified’ in Part 1 of Schedule H. thereto annexed, which is entitled ‘Rates on goods conveyed upon or shipped or unshipped in the river or at the harbour, or using any transit-shed or warehouse,’ and contains ‘timber’ in the list of goods chargeable.
In 1877 the Clyde Trustees for the first time proposed to charge dues on the timber on its being floated up to the timber-ponds. In a suspension at the instance of the owners of the ponds-
Held: (aff. judgment of First Division), on a construction of the statutes, that the timber so floated up did not fall within the scope of sec. 98, and that the dues claimed were not leviable.
Question, Whether there was any distinction between the case before the Court and that of timber floated up to and delivered in yards in the upper parts of river, which timber had admittedly paid dues since the passing of the Act?
Opinions that in construing a statute so recent as that of 1858, the manner in which it was acted on by persons affected by it could not constitute any contemporanea expositio which could assist the Court in its construction.
Lords Blackburn, Watson, Bramwell, and Fitzgerald
[1883] UKHL 869, 20 SLR 869
Scotland
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.636765
LT RATING – private opencast coal sites – valuation – royalties and market evidence – comparison with British Coal assessments – tone of the list – methods of valuation – respondent valuation officers’ valuations accepted.
[2005] EWLands RA – 239 – 1995
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225830
LT RATING – hereditament – harbour undertaking – headquarters building – whether to be entered in rating list or included in authority’s operational land cumulo hereditament – Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No 2) Regulations 1989 reg 5 – held not operational land and must be entered in list
[2004] EWLands RA – 60 – 2000
Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No 2) Regulations 1989 5
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225784
LT RATING – exemption – agricultural building – Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sch 5 para 7 – seed warehouse occupied by members co-operative – members themselves co-operatives – agricultural land occupied not by member co-operatives but by their individual members – substantial proportion of seed coming from and going to persons other than member co-operatives and their members – held not exempt
[2003] EWLands RA – 75 – 1998
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225767
LT RATING – hereditament – occupation – whether former ferry permanently moored and used as nightclub rateable – held that it was rateable
[2002] EWLands RA – 38 – 1998
Appeal from – Cinderella 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: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225712
RATING – rateable value – telecommunications mast and associated equipment located in highway – operator’s right to locate equipment in highway free of charge – whether effect of right that land of no value on rating hypothesis – land held to be of value – rateable value of land and rateable plant confirmed at andpound;1,100
[2003] EWLands RA – 53 – 2001
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225742
LT RATING – advertising rights – Tribunal required to determine rating appeals under existing system – ability to pay – methods of valuation – profits basis -rents – assessments – tone of the list – appeal dismissed.
[2003] EWLands RA – 22 – 2002
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225746
LT RATING – Magistrates’ Courts – valuation – contractor’s basis – whether hereditament properly identified in rating list – whether rooms occupied by Department of Health and Social Security and Crown Prosecution Service constituted separate hereditaments – whether land value, based on agreed percentage of construction cost, should reflect fees – whether grant from Home Office should be reflected in valuation – valuation officer’s appeal allowed in full.
[2002] EWLands RA – 403 – 1995
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225717
LT RATING – rateable property – composite premises – non-domestic premises – employed person using bedroom at home for full-time office work – Local Government Finance Act 1988 s 66(1)(a) – held house used wholly for purposes of living accommodation, therefore not rateable
[2003] EWLands RA – 22 – 2001
Local Government Finance Act 1988 66(1)(a)
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225763
General Rate Act, 1967, s.115(1) – Meaning of hereditament – Non-contiguous properties in single occupation – structurally and geographically separated – Functional connection insufficient to justify finding single hereditament
[2003] EWLands RA – 10 – 2002
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225736
LT RATING – annual value – lock-up shop – valuation – rents and assessments of comparable premises – mode or category of occupation – rebus sic stantibus – ratepayers appeal allowed in part – assessment reduced from andpound;2,550 RV to andpound;2,430 RV
[2001] EWLands RA – 29 – 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225640
LT RATING – shop – poor location – partially obscured visibility – comparison with other shops – whether evidence of reduction in value of appeal premises – appeal dismissed.
[2001] EWLands RA – 25 – 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225632
[2000] EWLands RA – 378 – 1996
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225570
LT RATING – cricket clubhouse on land exempt as a public park – whether proposal raised question of rateability – whether rateable – value – held jurisdiction to consider rateability – clubhouse in rateable occupation of cricket club – assessment reduced from andpound;3,200 RV to andpound;2,100 RV
[2000] EWLands RA – 27 – 2000
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225624
LT RATING – proposal made by person no longer in occupation – Non-Domestic Rating (Alterations and Appeals) Regulations 1993 – VO raising invalidity of proposal for first time in Lands Tribunal – held entitled to do so – ratepayer’s appeal therefore dismissed
[2000] EWLands RA – 56 – 1999
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225594
The appellant owned a freehold property on an industrial estate. The land was subject to a rentcharge under which the rent charge owner sought to recover costs of the management of the estate. The appellant said that the charges failed since they sought recovery for payment of the costs of maintenance, and of rating liability of the common parts of the estate, and so were not exclusively for the benefit of the land charged, and were not reasonable.
Held: Under the 1977 Act, estate rentcharges could still be created. It was in the interests of the several plots on the estate, that the common parts were maintained, and the rates paid. The rentcharge fell within the exemption, and was reasonable, since it sought to recover no more than the costs incurred.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Gazette 25-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 406, [2002] 18 EG 155
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.170022
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 not activities creating a ratable occupation. The original business owner remained in occupation for this purpose.
Lord Justice Pill, And Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Times 15-Jan-2002, Gazette 27-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1934, [2002] 1 WLR 1304, [2002] BPIR 665, [2002] NPC 8, [2002] 2 EGCS 101, [2002] BCC 495, [2002] RA 23
Insolvency Act 1986 35, Local Government Finance Act 1988 43(1)
England and Wales
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167309
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 of pounds 1.00.
Sir Ernest Ryder SPT, Davis, Henderson LJJ
[2018] EWCA Civ 26, [2018] 1 WLR 3463, [2018] WLR(D) 32
England and Wales
At UTLC – 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 . .
At CA – Telereal 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.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.602964
Disputed petition in respect of liability orders made in the Magistrates Court. An order that N be made bankrupt is opposed on the ground that there has been a miscarriage of justice. The court should not be satisfied that the debts set out in the petition are payable.
[2019] EWHC 886 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.636128
The applicant sought to have rescinded a winding up order made on 22 January 1997 in respect of a company called Bydand Ltd in respect of liability orders made for arrears of council tax.
Held: The claim failed. Liability orders are orders of the court like ordinary civil judgments. If a winding up petition is based on such orders the court will seldom look into them, or go behind them, in the absence of fraud, or in the absence of jurisdiction in the court that made the orders, or ‘some other truly compelling circumstance.’
Lindsay J
[1997] BCC 915
England and Wales
Appeal from – Bydand Ltd (In Liquidation); Todd v Chiltern District Council and Official Receiver CA 27-Jun-1997
. .
Appeal from – Bydand Limited v Mark Feldman and Co (a Firm) Buckinghamshire County Council CA 27-Jan-1998
. .
Cited – Dennis Rye Ltd v Bolsover District Council CA 6-May-2009
Right to raise claim against rates insolvency
The ratepayer company sought leave to appeal and to challenge the use of insolvency proceedings to recover council tax. It said that it had a valid counterclaim.
Held: Leave was refused. ‘A company is not prevented from raising a cross-claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.342121
[2002] EWCA Civ 966, [2004] RVR 11
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217491
Rating – Valuation – Quarry
[2019] UKUT 106 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.635796
The appellants, the Port of London Authority, appealed against an assessment by the respondents upon Tilbury Docks for poor rates, claiming that in arriving at the assessable value the Assessment Committee should have made a deduction from the annual value in respect of ‘tenants’ profits.’ The respondents maintained that the decision in Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Liverpool Overseers ( 1873, L.R., 9 Q.B. 84) precluded such deduction.
Held that the deduction claimed was not precluded by law, and that if and so far as Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Liverpool Overseers precluded Quarter Sessions from entering upon an inquiry as to the amount of profits a hypothetical tenant would expect to make, it was wrongly decided.
Remit to the King’s Bench Division.
Lord Chancellor (Birkenhead), Lords Haldane, Dunedin, and Buckmaster
[1920] UKHL 718, 57 SLR 718
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.631509
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 a house, shop, office, factory or, in this case, a telephone exchange.’ and ‘I think the test is: as a matter of fact and degree, is, or will the building, as a building, be ready for occupation, or capable of occupation, for the purpose for which it is intended?’
Browne LJ
[1976] 1 WLR 624
England and Wales
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.545146
The claimant appealed against valuations by the defendants. They complained that the statute imposed a duty on them to alter the rating lists to accpord with agreements as to their value.
Held: The statute imposed no time scale for the defendants to implement the changes. What time was proper therefore required the court to look at all the circumstances. Indeed in this case the claimants could establish any right to have the lists changed at all.
Lord Justice Clarke Vice-Chancellor, The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Dyson
[2004] EWCA Civ 967, Times 09-Sep-2004
Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199487
Moses LJ
[2004] EWHC 2372 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.219213
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 could ask what would be the cost of the company taking a lease of the land. The valuation was correct.
Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Jacob Lord Justice Thomas
[2004] EWCA Civ 155, Times 20-Feb-2004, Gazette 26-Feb-2004
Telecommunications Act 1984, Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sch6
England and Wales
Cited – Hoare and Another v National Trust CA 13-Oct-1998
The rating hypothesis must be interpreted to allow for the actual policies of the tenant. Where the tenant would not overbid despite the finding that properties of this type could not be managed to produce a profit. Nil rating was appropriate. Peter . .
Cited – Townley 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Dawkins (Valuation Officer) v Ash Brothers and Heaton HL 1969
The House considered the statutory principle of valuation for rating purposes: ‘But one excludes human realities to a limited and necessary extent, since it is only the human realities that give any value at all to hereditaments. They are excluded . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193582
The taxpayer owned a cottage where he now lived in retirement. He had been a headmaster at a public school, and had been required to live in the house provided. He sought to assert that the school house had been his main residence and that he was liable to pay council tax only at the reduced rate for the cottage.
Held: There was no one definition which would satisfactorily categorise all cases. Usually a main residence would be the dwelling that a reasonable onlooker with knowledge of the material facts would regard as that person’s home. At the relevant time, the Williams’ never stayed in the cottage. They lived nearby in the school house. The discount should have been allowed at 50%, and the council must repay any excess paid on their demand.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Buxton, Keene LJJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 39, Times 29-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1137, Gazette 26-Feb-2004, [2004] RA 49, [2004] 3 All ER 30, [2004] 5 EGCS 147
Local Government Finance Act 1992 6(5)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Williams v Horsham District Council Admn 26-Jun-2003
The resident owned a house but lived elsewhere, visiting the cottage only occasionally, and not staying overnight. He paid full council tax at first but then sought a rebate under the Act.
Held: The tribunal had exaggerated the importance of . .
Cited – Frost (Inspector of Taxes) v Feltham 1981
A ‘residence’ is a place where somebody lives. ‘Residence’ was used as part of the definition of the word ‘resident’. . .
Cited – Bennett, Regina (on the Application of) v Copeland Borough Council CA 14-May-2004
The taxpayer complained at being charged council tax as a resident of a house which he owned but had never occupied.
Held: Actual residence was critical to the possibility of the charge. The Act recognised a difference btween a resident and an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193490
A reduction in council tax was not to be allowed for a disability for rooms unless the reason for occupying the room was associated with the disability.
[2003] EWHC 1749 (Admin)
Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal Regulations 1989
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185645
The resident owned a house but lived elsewhere, visiting the cottage only occasionally, and not staying overnight. He paid full council tax at first but then sought a rebate under the Act.
Held: The tribunal had exaggerated the importance of the fact that his wife lived elsewhere and that he did not stay overnight. They should not be elevated beyond other factors.
Mr Justice McCombe
Gazette 10-Jul-2003, [2003] EWHC 1862 (Admin)
Local Government Finance Act 1992 11(2)(a)
Appeal from – Williams v Horsham District Council CA 21-Jan-2004
The taxpayer owned a cottage where he now lived in retirement. He had been a headmaster at a public school, and had been required to live in the house provided. He sought to assert that the school house had been his main residence and that he was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184717
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. The licences were stated to be non-exclusive, but the law of rating looks to the reality of the circumstances. Given the authorities, the occupier was rateable by virtue of it soccupation of the land by the boat.
Potter LJ reviewed the authorities and said: ‘The four conditions of rateable occupation as set out in John Laing and Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Committee [1949] 1 KB 344, 357 and approved in London County Council v Wilkins [1957] AC 362 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 (i.e. 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; see generally Ryde on Rating and the Council Tax, loose-leaf ed, Division B, paras 61-62.
The cases culminating in London County Council v Wilkins and Field Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding [1966] 2 QB 484, which developed the principle that chattels may be rateable if enjoyed with the land and enhancing its value, have also made clear that the placing of a valuable chattel in or on land may itself be all that is required by way of occupation of the lands to render the chattel and the land together a rateable hereditament.
Assuming for a moment that condition (i) can be satisfied, in the sense that the Lands Tribunal was entitled to hold that the vessel could properly be regarded as occupying the riverbed beneath (see further below), there seems to me no room for doubt that conditions (ii)-(iv) were satisfied in this case.
So far as condition (ii) is concerned, when a person occupies land in respect of which he has no title to the exclusive occupation or possession but his occupation is exclusive in fact, then he is rateable in respect of that occupation. It seems to me that the question is identical to that enunciated by Lord Russell in Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Co [1936] AC 511, 532, namely whether the person sought to be rated has the enjoyment of the land ‘to the substantial exclusion of all other persons’. As made clear in that case, at p 533, the relevant question is: what 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. The substance of the document granting the right of occupation is highly material; however, what is material is not so much the precise terms of the grant but whether the occupation is in fact greater or lesser than the terms convey. It is also the position that the reservation by the grantor of a right which is never exercised and could not be fully exercised without destroying the grant is to be disregarded: per Lord Wright at p 567.
The factual position in this case, as already indicated, was that the vessel between 1990 and 1999, under successive licences from the Crown Estate Commissioners, occupied a fixed position in the river, immediately above the area of the foreshore and riverbed the subject of the licence. While the licence stated that its terms were not to be construed as giving exclusive use of the disputed area to the appellants, the liberty of the commissioners to grant elsewhere any rights or easements over the relevant land was limited by the proviso that it should not thereby prevent the placing and maintenance of the vessel in accordance with the licence. Nor, as the agreed facts stated, were any other or ‘rival’ rights granted by the commissioners during the entire period that the vessel was moored in position under the terms of the licence. In these circumstances it is clear that if the vessel could be properly regarded in occupation of the riverbed beneath, it was de facto in exclusive occupation.
So far as condition (iii) is concerned, it is plain that the occupation was of great value and benefit to the appellants as occupiers. Equally, so far as condition (iv) was concerned, there was a period of occupation of some nine years with a single brief interruption on some unspecified date when the vessel was temporarily removed from its moorings by tugs. I therefore return to consider condition (i).
Throughout a period of nine years, the vessel was placed in position over the licensed area of riverbed beneath. While the principle stated in London County Council v Wilkins [1957] AC 362 and Field Place Caravan Park Ltd [1966] 2 QB 484 dealt with structures which were physically placed upon dry land, and there were not in this case any moorings within the riverbed by which the vessel could be said to occupy the riverbed (cf Cory v Bristow App Cas 262), it does not seem to me that the interposition of water between the vessel and the riverbed of itself acted in any significant manner to deprive the appellants of occupation of the area of the riverbed the subject of the licence. The ‘permanent’ presence of the vessel was sufficient to constitute de facto exclusive occupation of that part of the riverbed. That view seems to me entirely consistent with the observations of Lloyd and Mann LJJ in Westminster City Council Woodbury [1992] Ran1, 8-9, 14, quoted at paragraphs 30 and 31 above.’
Potter, Chadwick, Tuckey LJJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 529, Times 23-Apr-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2423
Local Government Finance Act 1982 64(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Field 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 . .
Cited – Sir Anthony Earby’s case 1633
The liability to be rated rests upon the occupier of the property concerned. Assessments under the Act ought to be made according to the visible estate of the inhabitants there, both real and personal. . .
Cited – Smith’s Dock Co Ltd v Tynemouth Corporation 1908
A floating dock fixed in position on a long-term basis over moorings on the riverbed could for rating purposes be treated as being in occupation of the mooring and the part of the riverbed in which it was situate. . .
Cited – Cory v Bristow HL 1877
The owner of a vessel used for commercial purposes while fixed in position on a long-term basis over moorings on the riverbed could for rating purposes be treated as the occupier of those moorings and the part of the riverbed in which they were . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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.
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Felgate (Valuation Officer) v Lotus Leisure Enterprises Ltd LT 2000
The Valuation Officeer had entered in the rating list a moored but floating restaurant ‘dock bed, floating restaurant, moorings and premises’. The Tribunal had to decide whether such rateable hereditament had been correctly identified. The vessel . .
Cited – John Menzies and Co v The Assessor for Edinburgh 1937
When asking whether a structure on land was rateable, the court should ask first whether the subject structure belonged to a class or genus which was prima facie heritable. Scottish courts places great emphasis upon the general character of the . .
Appeal from – Valuation Officer v Cinderella Rockerfellas Ltd LT 13-Jun-2002
LT RATING – hereditament – occupation – whether former ferry permanently moored and used as nightclub rateable – held that it was rateable . .
Approved – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180733
(New Zealand) The appeal concerned the rating of properties. Where two properties were held under the same land certificates, was this enough to have require only one listing on the valuation roll. New Zealand uses the Torrens style of Land Registration, under which, it was argued, the unit of registration determined also entries for ‘separate properties’. This has its origin in Scots law. The authorities contended that the test was rather the unit of occupation.
Held: The expression ‘separate property’ was not defined. It was to be interpreted within the context in which it was used. In this case that meant rating, not land law, and it was dangerous to bring forward meanings for wordings from earlier statutes. Separate occupation was the correct criterion.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
[2002]UKPC 47, [2003] RA 180
England and Wales
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177998
The appellant sought to challenge rating entries in the non-domestic rating list, by way of judicial review. The application was out of time, but proceeded as a substantial review. The applicant said the entries were incurably defective in that they misdescribed the properties. Domestic properties could be in the list if used for short stay lets.
Held: The misdescription did not annul the entry, and was capable of rectification if necessary. However the Act was incapable of being reread so as to impose liability for tax on a freeholder. The Act may include a drafting error, but it could not be rewritten by the courts to correct that error.
Mr James Goudie QC
[2001] EWHC Admin 1130
Local Government Finance Act 1992 22 28, Local Government Finance Act 1988 41, Non-Domestic Rates (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Northamptonshire LVC, ex parte Anglian Water Authority 1990
. .
Cited – Westminster City Council v Woodbury (Valuation Officer) and the Yard Arm Club Ltd CA 1-Nov-1992
A vessel, the Hispaniola was firmly fixed to moorings. The Council appealed a finding that it was exempt from inclusion in the rating list by the Act.
Held: The court found difficulty in the idea of lateral occupation by a chattel, or that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168011
The maintenance of the highways within the district of a local board of health must be provided for by a district rate, and not by a highway rate, whether the district be or be not conterminous with an ancient parochial division.
[1857] EngR 898, (1857) 8 El and Bl 535, (1857) 120 ER 200
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.290644
A roofless mosque was not occupied for rating purposes after a single gathering, but becomes a mosque and occupied only after the full fitting of the roof.
Ind Summary 05-Sep-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88440
The Scottish Drainage and Improvement Company’s Act 1856, sec. 49, provides for the execution by the Enclosure Commissioners of an absolute order charging the amount of improvement expenditure ‘upon the fee of the lands improved.’ The form of the absolute order is prescribed by Schedule C of the statute, and by it the fee of the lands is charged, but no personal obligation is imposed. Sec. 61 provides-‘Every charge on land by virtue of this Act may be recovered by the Company or the person for the time being entitled to the same, by the same means and in like manner in all respects as any feuduties, or rent, or annual rent, or other payment out of the same lands would be recoverable in Scotland.’
In a case where an absolute order had been granted in the form prescribed by Schedule C, charging the fee of a glebe with an annual rent charge in respect of an advance made to the parish minister for improvements on the glebe-held (aff. the judgment of the Court of Session) that the Enclosure Commissioners had not a personal action against the succeeding minister for the rent charge under the Act.
Lords Herschell, Watson, and Fitzgerald
[1889] UKHL 790, 26 SLR 790
Scotland
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.635172
Appeal against a decision of the Valuation Tribunal Pursuant to Regulation 43 of The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) Regulations 2009.
Worster HHJ
[2014] EWHC 4142 (Admin)
The Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) Regulations 2009 43
England and Wales
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.542562
[2018] UKUT 331 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.627169
[2001] ScotCS 144
Scotland
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.164218
[2001] ScotCS 143
Scotland
Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.164217
Where an electricity supplier operated a waste plant to generate electricity, but still, the predominant use of the plant was for waste disposal, the rates were not to be calculated under the industry’s own special rules, but under those for the general rating of business premises. An explanatory note may be referred to as an aid to construction where the statutory instrument to which it is attached is ambiguous.
Lord Hope considered the meaning of the phrase ‘in connection with’ and said: ‘The majority in the Court of Appeal held that it was a sufficient answer to the appellant’s argument to construe the words ‘in connection with’ as meaning ‘having to do with’. This explanation of the meaning of the phrase was given by McFarlane J in Re Nanaimo Community Hotel Limited [1944] 4 D.L.R. 638. It was adopted by Somervell L.J. in Johnson v. Johnson [1952] P. 47, 50-51. It may be that in some contexts the substitution of the words ‘having to do with’ will solve the entire problem which is created by the use of the words ‘in connection with.’ But I am not, with respect, satisfied that it does so in this case, and Mr. Holgate did not rely on this solution to the difficulty. As he said, the phrase is a protean one which tends to draw its meaning from the words which surround it. In this case it is the surrounding words, when taken together with the words used in the 1991 Amending Order and its wider context, which provide the best guide to a sensible solution of the problem which has been created by the ambiguity.’
Lord Steyn Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Millett
Times 30-Nov-1999, Gazette 08-Dec-1999, [1999] UKHL 49, [1999] 1 WLR 2093, [2000] 1 All ER 97
House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) Order 1989 (1989 No 2474)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Montila and Others HL 25-Nov-2004
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 11-May-2007
Retired bank employees had previously received free tax advice. When the service was withdrawn, the bank made a payment. The Revenue said that this payment was chargeable to income tax.
Held: The bank’s appeal failed. The payment was made ‘in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159032
[2001] EWCA Civ 473
Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993
England and Wales
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147500
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 occupation or control of the schools.
Roch, Sedley LJJ, Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Gazette 08-Sep-1999, Times 02-Sep-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1999
Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146914
Rating – Self-Catering Holiday Cottages – Wales
[2018] UKUT 327 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.627166
Rating – Procedure
[2018] UKUT 344 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.627167
[1837] EngR 316, (1837) 7 Ad and E 417, (1837) 112 ER 527
England and Wales
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.313433
[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 40
Scotland
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.525461
Carnwath J
[2000] EWHC Admin 317, [2000] RA 1
England and Wales
Appeal from – Edison First Power Ltd v The Secretary of State for Department of Environment Transport and the Regions CA 12-Jul-2001
. .
At First Instance – Regina v Central Valuation Officer and another ex parte Edison First Power Limited HL 10-Apr-2003
Powergen sold a property to Edison. Powergen had 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 . .
Appeal from – Edison First Power Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions CA 12-Jul-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140131
[1999] EWHC Admin 340
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139604
Rating – Procedure – whether an expert witness was acting on a conditional fee arrangement – whether declarations made in an expert report were accurate – an expert witness’s obligation to the Tribunal to act independently – whether success-related fees are compatible with that obligation – the procedure for dealing with possible breaches of an expert’s obligations to the Tribunal or of a professional code of conduct
[2018] UKUT 253 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.622347
[1858] EngR 148, (1858) El Bl and El 711, (1858) A)
England and Wales
See Also – Shortland v The Local Board Of Health For The Borough of Plymouth (149) 1858
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.288619
[1858] EngR 149, (1858) El Bl and El 705, (1858) A)
England and Wales
See Also – Shortland v The Local Board Of Health For The Borough of Plymouth (148) 1858
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.288620
Law J
[1998] EWHC Admin 1044
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.139165
[1998] EWHC Admin 691
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138812
[1837] EngR 308, (1837) 6 Ad and E 905, (1837) 112 ER 346
England and Wales
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.313425
[1998] EWHC Admin 579
Local Government Finance Act 1992, Council tax (Alterations of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 (1993 No 290)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138700
[1998] EWHC Admin 433
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138554
Application for permission to appeal against liability orders for Council Tax.
[1998] EWHC Admin 149
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138270
The applicant challenged a refusal to enter the property in the lists as a nursing home. It was no longer registered as such, but had been; that it was not necessary for it to be registered to be entitled to a 50% discount on Council Tax.
Held: Discount was allowable under section 11. For the 50% discount all the residents had to be entitled to be treated as residents of a nursing home. The applicant was not. He claimed it was a small home. However the tribunal had dismissed his case on the facts. Appeal dismissed.
[1998] EWHC Admin 156
Local Government Finance Act 1992 11
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138277
Laws LJ
[1998] EWHC Admin 94
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138215
RATING – occupation – offices – proposal to delete hereditament from 2005 rating list because premises incapable of beneficial occupation – whether burden of proof on appellant satisfied – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKUT 248 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.464775
RATING – valuation – contractor’s basis – value of occupation to hypothetical tenant – public conveniences – appeal allowed
David Mole QC
[2012] UKUT 5 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.463436
UTLC RATING – exemption – rebus sic stantibus – valuation – abattoir – whether lairage exempt as an agricultural building – whether abattoir to be valued by reference to local industrial tone – held lairage is rateable – abattoir is a separate mode or category of occupation and should not be valued by reference to industrial tone but by reference to agreed assessments of similar abattoirs – rateable value assessed at andpound;170,000 – Local Government Finance Act 1988 Schedule 5 para 5
[2012] UKUT 61 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.452861
UTLC RATING – valuation – airport business centre – lease containing restrictions on use to meet requirements of airport operator landlord – whether use as business centre in same category or mode of use as office use – held it was not – rent payable better evidence of value than tone of value for offices – appeal dismissed – RV confirmed at andpound;170,000
N J Rose FRICS
[2012] UKUT 62 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.452856
UTLC RATING – valuation – shop – compiled list inaccuracy – material change of circumstances – valuation officer making single alteration to list – effective date – held different effective dates applied – appeal allowed in part
[2010] UKUT 417 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.449724
UTLC RATING – rateable property – domestic premises – riverside garden with summer-house – remote from occupiers’ dwellings Local Government Finance Act 1988 s 66(1)(a), (b) and (d) – held no part of the property fell within any of these paras – appeal dismissed.
[2011] UKUT 418 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.449721
[1997] EWHC Admin 636
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137581
The defendant appealed against orders for her committal to prison for non-payment of Council Tax.
McCullough
[1997] EWHC Admin 378
Community Charge (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 41, Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 47
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137323
Popplewelll J
[1997] EWHC Admin 180
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Coventry Justices Ex Parte Bullard and Another QBD 15-Apr-1992
Computer based evidence, which says what would have been said by the person making the record, remains hearsay, and is inadmissible without statutory provision otherwise. There is no exception for summary civil proceedings for the collection of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137125
[1997] EWHC Admin 64
Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals (Amendment) Regulations 1993 51
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137009