The ratepayer complained that an enterprise zone set up near his property had depressed the value of his property which should have been reflected in a reduced rateable value. He appealed a decision that section 20 related only to physical changes affecting the property.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The critical factor was that the statutory word ‘state’, unaccompanied by any qualifying epithet such as ‘physical’, should ‘be given a wide construction, so as to include intangible as well as physical advantages and disadvantages’
Citations:
[1988] 1 WLR 301 (HL, [1988] RA 25
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Addis Ltd v Clement (VO) CA 1987
The ratepayer challenged the rateable value of his business premises. A business park had been erected within an enterprise zone nearby. Because properties in the enterprise zone were subsidised, the rental value of his own premises was reduced. It . .
Cited by:
Cited – Chilton-Merryweather v Hunt and others CA 19-Sep-2008
The council tax payers sought to reduce the banding for his house saying that it was adversely affected in value by being located so close to the motorway as to be affected by noise.
Held: The House of Lords decision in Addis had been reversed . .
Cited – R F Williams (Valuation Officer) v Scottish and Newcastle Retail Ltd Allied Domecq Retailing Ltd CA 15-Feb-2001
When assessing the ratable value of premises, the value had to be determined with respect to the actual use made, and the value of the building in that use. The fact that a building was in an area where with a different use a much greater return . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Rating
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.276416
