A house lived in by a church officer was occupied for rating purposes by the church’s congregational board which employed him, and so was not liable for full rates. Lord Hodson said: ‘The distinction is usually shortly stated in this way: if the servant is given the privilege of residing in the house of the master as part of his emoluments the occupation is that of the servant. He is treated for occupation purposes as being in the same position as that of a tenant. If, on the other hand, the servant is genuinely obliged by his Master for the purposes of his master’s business or if it is necessary for the servant to reside in the house for the performance of his services the occupation will be that of the master.’
Lord Reid, Lord Hodson
 2 WLR 657,  AC 609
Applied – Fox v Dalby 1874
A militia sergeant occupied a house built expressly for accommodation of persons looking after the stores and which had been assigned to him by his commanding officer.
Held: The sergeant did not occupy the house as a tenant. Brett J said: . .
Applied – Wragg and others v Surrey County Council CA 1-Feb-2008
The Council appealed against declarations given that the respondent tenants (wildlife rangers) were entitled to purchase the freehold of their homes under right-to-buy. The Council said that the tenancies were occupied in connection with their . .
Cited – Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Rating, Housing, Charity
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.536772