The House considered whether premises (the greater part of which was used for the storage of rags awaiting processing, sorting or subsequent despatch) fell within the proviso to s.3(1) which excluded premises ‘primarily occupied and used [for the] purposes of storage’.
Held: A building is only used for storage if the purpose of keeping goods there is their storage as an end in itself: there is no such use for storage if the goods are kept there for some other purpose
A means to an end is not a purpose and end in itself.
Viscount Dunedin said: ‘storage in s. 3, sub-s. 1 (d), means storage as a purpose and end in itself, and that such storage as is merely a necessary and transitory incident of the manufacturing process which is being carried on does not fall within the definition. Accordingly in Burrows’ case I think the premises are not ‘primarily occupied and used for purposes of storage.’
Judges:
Viscount Dunedin
Citations:
[1931] AC 454
Statutes:
Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928 3(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Skipaway Ltd v The Environment Agency Admn 5-May-2006
The defendant appealed convictions for breaches of its waste management licence, in that waste had been stored outside the edges of the storage bays. The defendant said that the material had not yet been stored, and that it had been deposited by . .
Cited – Skipaway Ltd v The Environment Agency Admn 5-May-2006
The defendant appealed convictions for breaches of its waste management licence, in that waste had been stored outside the edges of the storage bays. The defendant said that the material had not yet been stored, and that it had been deposited by . .
Cited – Bestway (Holdings) Ltd v Luff (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 4-Mar-1998
The taxpayer company operated a wholesale cash and carry business from a number of self-service supermarkets. The stores sold groceries, household goods, tobacco, confectionery and various kinds of alcohol. Although the buildings were not open to . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Maco Door and Window Hardware (Uk) Ltd ChD 19-Jul-2006
The Revenue sought to disallow for industrial buildings allowance sums expended on warehouse premises which were to be used to store window products imported for use in other manufacturing processes.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal succeeded. ‘The . .
Cited – Imperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate SC 12-Dec-2012
The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Rating
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.241534