The company appealed against liability orders made against it. It owned premises which were subdivided and let to other businesses which it contended were the ones in actual occupation, since it did not benefit from physical, non-transient occupation.
Held: The appeal failed. The magistrates had properly allowed for the restricted nature of the licences granted by the appellant. The decision in John Laing were that no physical occupation was required. The appellant’s business was to allow others to use he premises, and that they shared a common access. The company had had to retain physical control of the premises to perform its duties under the licences ithad granted. Once actual occupation had been established, it was inevitable that the company’s occupation should be found to be exclusive and beneficial and not transient.
[ RA 471
Cited – Holywell Union v Halkin District Mines DrainageCo HL 1895
The landowner had granted to a drainage company an exclusive right of drainage though a tunnel and a watercourse in his land, with the right of placing works in the tunnel and the watercourse and of making other tunnels in connection therewith, . .
Cited – John Laing and Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Committee KBD 1949
The appellant building contractors had been engaged by the Air Ministry to execute works at an aerodrome. They erected on the site, for the purpose of carrying out the contract, offices, garages, canteen for workmen and other structures. Although . .
Cited – Tallington Lakes Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Grantham Magistrates Court Admn 25-Nov-2010
The company appealed against liability orders made against it for non-payment of domestic rates, saying that in each case it had not been the rateable occupier. The property had been subdivided and let to companies of which the appellant was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.443326