Any work on the fabric of a building constituted its alteration ‘except that which is so slight or trivial as to attract the application of the de minimis rule’. The word ‘demolition’ meant destroying the building as a whole.
References: [1983] 1 WLR 1445, [1984] 1 All ER 112
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zielinski Baker and Partners Limited HL 26-Feb-2004
The commissioners sought to charge to VAT charges for works which had been carried out to a building within the curtilage of a listed building. The taxpayer sought zero-rating.
Held: The outbuilding to which alterations were made must have . .
([2004] BTC 5249, [2004] 1 WLR 707, [2004] STI 502, [2004] STC 456, [2004] 10 EGCS 185, [2004] 2 All ER 141, [2004] BVC 309, , [2004] UKHL 7, , Times 27-Feb-04, Gazette 25-Mar-04) - Cited – Shimizu (UK) Ltd v Westminster City Council HL 11-Feb-1997
The removal of a listed building’s chimney stacks was an alteration allowing a claim for compensation. The phrases ‘alteration’ and ‘demolition’ are mutually exclusive. Although part of a building may be a listed building, a part of a listed . .
(Gazette 12-Mar-97, Times 11-Feb-97, , , [1997] 1 All ER 481, [1997] UKHL 3, [1997] 1 WLR 168)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193896 br>