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
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.


Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.513673