Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Rating - From: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Easiwork Homes Ltd v Redbridge London Borough Council [1970] 2 QB 406
1970
QBD
Bridge J
Rating
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."
General Rate Act 1967
1 Citers



 
 W and JB Eastwood Ltd v Herrod (VO); HL 1971 - [1971] AC 160

 
 Hilleshog Sugar Beet Breeding Co Ltd v Wilke; LT 1971 - [1971] RA 275

 
 Thomas v Witney Aquatic Co Ltd; LT 1972 - [1972] RA 31
 
Thomas (Valuation Officer) v Whitney Aquatic Co Ltd [1972] RA 49
1972
LT
JH Emlyn Jones Esq FRICS
Rating
The ratepayers had a legal right to use a lake for sporting activities and to maintain a floating clubhouse on the lake. The clubhouse was made fast in a particular location upon the lake but it was moved in winter months to an island in the centre of the lake. Held: The lake and clubhouse were rateable as part of the ratepayers hereditament. Rateable occupation was to be determined by a consideration of the "four tests of rateability referred to by the solicitor for the valuation officer, which were first propounded by Counsel in the John Laing case, and subsequently adopted by the House of Lords in London County Council v Wilkins." The tribunal considered the fact that the clubhouse was moved from the position in which it was used during the winter months, saying: "It remains for me therefore to consider what weight ought to be attached to the fact that the clubhouse is moored for the winter months each year – the actual months were not specified – to the island in the middle of the lake. Does this movement lead to the conclusion that contrary to Lord Denning's words in the Field Place case, there is not such a degree of permanence that the chattel with the land can together be regarded as one unit of occupation? This question seems to me to be the same question as that which has been asked when the fourth ingredient of rateable occupation has been under consideration – "possession for not too transient a period". There have been a number of cases where the period of time during which occupation has been maintained has been taken as the relevant factor. For example, in John Laing's case, although the question of transience was not directly an issue, the temporary structures were in position for two years; in Wilkins' case, for about 18 months – although one hut was moved once during a period of about 20 months and so must have spent a maximum of 10 months on one site. In both cases it was held that there was rateable occupation of the huts. Similarly in Hilleshog Sugar Beet Breeding Co Ltd v Wilkes parcels of land were occupied for 9-10 months in a year. This was held by the Lands Tribunal to be not too transient a period to establish a rateable occupation notwithstanding that in subsequent years the occupation passed on to the other land . . In Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons Ltd v Payne it was held by the Lands Tribunal that occupation for 6-7 months was not enough. In his decision, Sir Michael Rowe drew a distinction between occupation by a settler and that by a wayfarer. The distinction appears to have been taken from a passage in the judgment of Lush J in R v St Pancras Assessment Committee . . These authorities suggest to me, that although duration of occupation is an important factor in determining degrees of transience, the character of the occupation can also have a bearing on its permanent nature. The movement of the clubhouse in the present case to another place within the hereditament does not in my judgment disturb the permanent character of a link between occupation of the chattel and occupation of the rest of the hereditament."
1 Citers


 
Western Stores Limited v The Council of The City of Orange [1973] UKPC 5; [1973] AC 774; [1973] 2 WLR 727
5 Feb 1973
PC
Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Pearson, Lord Kilbrandon, Lord Salmon
Commonwealth, Rating, Local Government
New South Wales - Where a public authority has exercised a power dependent on its prior formation of an opinion which was open on the facts before the authority, it is to be presumed, in default of reason to the contrary, that the requisite opinion was formed and the power was properly exercised.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Commissioner for Railways v Valuer-General; PC 1974 - [1974] 1 AC 328
 
Brook v National Coal Board [1975] RA 367
1975


Rating

1 Citers



 
 Post Office v Nottingham Council; CA 1976 - [1976] 1 WLR 624

 
 Daymond v South West Water Authority; HL 1976 - [1976] AC 609

 
 Milford Haven Conservancy Board v Inland Revenue Commissioners; CA 1976 - [1976] 1 WLR 817
 
Oxfam v Birmingham City District Council [1976] AC 126
1976
HL
Lord Reid, Lord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
Rating, Charity
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 the profits of such shops were devoted to the charity's purposes. Held: The appeal failed. The premises were not being "used for charitable purposes". Not every lawful activity of a charity is necessarily charitable. The "charitable purposes" of a charity are its objects.
Lord Cross of Chelsea said that a court must: "[draw] the line so as to exclude from relief user for the purpose of getting in, raising or earning money for the charity, as opposed to user for purposes directly related to the achievement of the objects of the charity".
Lord Reid said that Oxfam, therefore, was entitled to rating relief in respect of premises which it occupies and which are not being used for the actual relief of poverty of distress, if the use which it makes of them is "wholly ancillary to" or "directly facilitates" the carrying out of its charitable object - the relief of poverty or distress. The nub of the problem was: "For my part, I agree with counsel on both sides that one cannot well draw a distinction between using premises to get in money by managing existing trust property and using them to raise fresh money."
1 Citers



 
 Arsenal Football Club Ltd v Ende, Smith; HL 1978 - [1979] AC 1
 
Camden London Borough Council v Herwald [1978] QB 626
1978


Rating
Occupation of part of a hereditament by someone who retains legal possession of the whole and whose occupation of the part fulfils the description in the rating list, amounts to rateable occupation of the whole.
1 Citers


 
County and Nimbus Estates Limited v Ealing London Borough Council [1979] RA 63
1979


Rating

1 Citers


 
P.B. Groenveld BV v Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees C-15/79; R-15/79; [1979] EUECJ R-15/79; [1979] ECR 3409
8 Nov 1979
ECJ

European, Rating
A prohibited restriction on exports involved a national measure having discriminatory effect: "provision [i.e. Article 29 EC; now Article 35 TFEU] concerns the national measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade in such a way as to provide a particular advantage for national production or for the domestic market of the State in question at the expense of the production or of the trade of other Member States. This is not so in the case of a prohibition like that in question which is applied objectively to the production of goods of a certain kind without drawing a distinction depending on whether such goods are intended for the national market or for export."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.