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 phrase in the way contended for by the Appellant. As was pointed out in the English Speaking Union case and again in argument before us, the Appellant’s construction would substitute the word ‘solely’ for the word ‘wholly’. I see no reason why the statute should be thus narrowly confined. The natural reading and meaning of the words used, are, in my judgment, apt to cover not only consideration of the purpose of the use, but also the extent or amount of the actual use. It follows therefore that I would hold that the judge was right to take account of and place weight upon the extent to which the premises were used.’ However the district Judge’s decision could not be sustained: ‘ he took into account other factors which he should not have or which he did not analyse sufficiently.’ . . And ‘Whilst the judge was entitled to have regard to the English Speaking Union case and to look at the whole of the evidence before him and decide on a broad basis whether the premises were being used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes, and whilst the judge was correct to take into account the extent to which the premises were used, he also wrongly took account of other factors.’
Treacy LJ, King J
 EWHC 54 (Admin),  WLR(D) 23,  3 WLR 422,  2 EGLR 138,  1 QB 62,  RA 75,  WLR(D) 23
Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement)(Local Lists) Regulations 1989, Local Government Finance Act 1988 43(6), Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007
England and Wales
Cited – Makro Properties Limited v Nuneaton and Bedworth BC Admn 2012
A minor use will constitute rateable occupation for the purposes of liability to occupied rates. . .
Cited – English Speaking Union Scottish Branches Educational Fund, Re Judicial Review SCS 27-Oct-2009
Lord Bonomy set out the condition to be passed for a charities trading activities to be chartable for exemption from rating namely that the Court should look at the whole of the evidence before it and decide, on a broad basis, whether the premises . .
Cited – Gage v Wren 1903
Cited – Wynn v Skegness UDC 1967
Cited – Glasgow Corporation v Johnstone and Others (orse Johnstons) HL 1965
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 . .
Cited – Oxfam v Birmingham City District Council HL 1976
The appellant charity had the relief of poverty as its main object, a recognised ‘charitable purpose’. It operated gift shops used for sorting and selling donated articles of clothing as well as selling products made in the developing world. All of . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v O’Reilly and others CA 1-Jul-2003
The defendant sought to appeal against a decision of the High Court on a case stated by the Magistrates.
Held: A decision by the High Court on an appeal by way of case stated from the Magistrates was final, and no further appeal lay to the . .
Cited – Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2) CA 22-Jun-2005
The Court of Apeal had previously considered an appeal from the grant of a liability order made by magistrates. It had become clear that the order had been made without jurisdiction.
Held: The order must be set aside. The court had no . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Berriman QBD 2008
The Court permitted parallel case stated and Judicial Review proceedings to take place before it. . .
Cited – Regina (Magon) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham CA 7-May-1998
Mummery LJ refused permission to seek Judicial Review on the ground that the case stated procedure is the appropriate one available to question the correctness of a liability order made by the Magistrates’ Court. . .
Cited – Brighton and Hove City Council v Brighton and Hove Justices and Hamdan QBD 29-Jul-2004
Stanley Burnton J said that he had no doubt that the appropriate procedure for challenging decisions relating to liability orders is by way of case stated: ‘ the appropriate procedure to challenge the decision of the justices of 28 May 2003 was by . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 February 2021; Ref: scu.470484