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 3 months the owner should be rated as if the property was occupied. The ratepayer sought to imply into the clause a requirement that the property should be physically capable of occupation.
Held: The Court rejected this argument. Bridge J noted that paragraph 10 of schedule 1 provided that structural alteration of a building may render it no longer a hereditament liable to rates. It was therefore unlikely that the exemption should apply in the case of a property that was not being structurally altered to the effect contemplated by paragraph 10. Bridge J identified the mischief pursued by the Act, recognising the attractiveness of the argument that the true purpose of the legislation was to penalise property owners who, for the purposes of capital gain, kept their properties unoccupied for long periods when they might be providing useful accommodation. This property owner was, for the benefit of the community, attempting to upgrade domestic accommodation for occupation. However, Bridge J concluded that this was to a large extent counter-balanced by the rating authority’s argument that: ‘if the statute is to be construed so as to exclude liability under these provisions in respect of property which for the time being is incapable of occupation, it would open the door to widespread abuse in that it would be open to any property owner anxious to keep his property unoccupied for a substantial period of time simply to remove, say, the sanitary fittings and part of the plumbing in order to be able to say that the property was for the time being incapable of occupation.’
Judges:
Bridge J
Citations:
[1970] 2 QB 406
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Approved – Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Newham London Borough Council CA 1976
The Court considered an appeal by the owners of offices, which were in the course of erection, against completion notices under para 8 of Schedule 1 to the 1967 Act. The court held that the test for completion of a new building or an existing . .
Cited – Newbigin (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
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.533875