The London County Council were owners of land and premises consisting of a pumping-station and works, which they occupied and used
as a necessary part of the metropolitan sewage system and to enable them to perform statutory duties. So long as the land and premises were used as part of the sewage system they were incapable of yielding a profit and the London County Council were practically the only possible tenants.
If the land and premises had been in the possession, not of the London County Council, but of a private owner to be let, the London County Council would have been willing to pay a yearly rent for the same as part of the metropolitan sewage system sufficient to support the rateable value at which they were assessed to the poor-rate ; but except for the purposes of the sewage system and if the land and premises were disconnected therefrom and in the hands of a tenant applied to any other purpose for which they, might be available, the rateable value would be lower.
Under similar conditions the London County Council were also owners of outfall sewers used for the discharge of the sewage into the Thames and constructed, not underground, hut in an embankment erected upon land purchased for that purpose and previously rateable. Held, that the true test of beneficial occupation was not whether a profit could be made but whether the occupation was of value; That even supposing the London County Council could not under the statutes legally be tenants they ought to be taken into account as possible hypothetical tenants, for the purpose of determining the rateable value of the premises which they owned and occupied; That the pumping-station and works and the outfall sewers were rateable to the poor-rate and that the London County Council were assessed
on the true principle ;
Citations:
[1893] UKLawRpAC 52, (1893) AC 562
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Telereal Trillium v Hewitt (Valuation Officer) SC 15-May-2019
The court considered correct approach to determination of the rateable value of an office building, in circumstances where the evidence showed at the relevant time a general demand in the area for comparable office buildings, but no actual tenant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Rating
Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.671821
