Four builders’ moveable huts, which had been erected as temporary structures on a site for 18 months, only one of which was moved from one part of the site to the other during that period, were claimed chattels and therefore not rateable.
Held: Whether or not the structures had lost their character as chattels was not decisive as the test of rateability, nor was the conscious intention of the contractors to attach or not to attach them to the soil. These were factors to be considered and the test of rateability was whether there was evidence that the structures, occupied for a period which was not transient, were enjoyed with the land and enhanced its value. The test of rateability is whether there is evidence that the structures were enjoyed with the land and enhanced its value. In considering this, the intention of the erector and the other elements of annexation, period, size, quality, amenities and purpose are all material. All these factors are important, but intention, the ‘conscious element’ in intention, is no more than one factor and its importance is not overriding. The question is eminently one of fact.
Viscount Kilmuir set out what he regarded as the appropriate legal test for rateability: ‘I think that the Respondent’s submission was right, namely, that the test of rateability is whether there is evidence that the structures were enjoyed with the land and enhanced its value. In considering this, the intention of the erector and the other elements of annexation, period, size, quality, amenities and purpose are all material. All these factors are important, but intention, and certainly what I may call the ‘conscious element’ in intention, is no more than one factor and its importance is not overriding. The question is eminently one of fact.’
Lord Oaksey said: ‘A consideration of the authorities leads me to the conclusion that an occupier who makes any beneficial use of land is rateable if he does so for a period which is not transient.’
Lord Radcliffe said: ‘In my opinion, the present case really centres round the question whether the sheds, created on a building site by a building contractor for the purpose of his operations, involves such a degree of permanency in his occupation as to make it a rateable one. I have no doubt that, in considering this, it is at any rate relevant to ascertain to what extent and in what way these constructions have been made a fixed part of the site on which they stand, for the more casually they are attached the less likely it is that the occupation of them will be found to be a permanent one. In this sense it may be of some importance to enquire whether they are chattels or not. But to make the whole issue of rateability depends on the bare issue, for instance, whether a particular structure has or has not foundations in the ground which give it a measure of lateral as well as subjacent support would be to use a legal distinction for a purpose for which it was never intended . .
Certainly it is true that the law demands that an occupation to be rateable should be permanent. But then it is equally certain that permanence does not connote what it might appear to in this connexion. It is rather easier to say what it does not mean than what it does. An occupation is not the less permanent because it is that of a lessee who holds under a lease for a fixed term. In other words, there is permanent occupation however clearly the end might be in sight. More than that, an occupation can be permanent even though the structure or other chattel which is the means of occupation is removable on notice . . it may be that ‘permanent’ signifies no more than continuous, as opposed to intermittent, physical possession of the soil, as is suggested by the learned editors of Ryde on Rating (see 10th ed., p. 39). However that may be, it is well settled that a tenant at will has an occupation that is sufficiently permanent to carry rateability. If so, I see no reason why the contractor’s occupation of his huts during the pendency of the building contract should not produce a similar result. . .
But, in my opinion, within very wide limits, which are not overstepped in the present case, the question whether there is sufficient permanency of occupation is essentially a question of degree and as such is a proper question for the final determination of the Lands Tribunal. If the evidence had been, as it was not, that the huts or sheds were constantly being moved from one site to another, so that there was no real appropriation of any particular area of soil to the purposes of occupation, I can see that it might be necessary to say that the law did not admit so transient an occupation to be a rateable one. But all that we know is that one structure was once moved in the course of the operations and I do not think that we ought to assume that the occupation was in fact more transient than the evidence suggests. If so, 18 months on the site does not present itself to me as something inherently too brief for rateability. The rate is an annual impost on the occupier in respect of his profitable occupation of land; it is not a capital charge on the owner in respect of the property interest in the soil. If such an occupation in fact endures for a year or more I do not see why the occupier should not contribute to the current fund of the rating area for that period. The mere brevity of his occupation will be itself the cure of any hardship in his liability.’
Lord Tucker said: ‘A hereditament only becomes a subject of rateability if there is a sufficient element of ‘permanence’ in its occupation. This is essentially a question of fact and degree. It has long been settled that occupation for a defined period of time or even under a tenancy at will or by virtue of licence subject to revocation at any time may not be too transient to be regarded as ‘permanent’. See, for example, Cory v Bristow, where the moorings were subject to removal at a week’s notice from the conservators. If, therefore, the sites on which these huts stood, apart altogether from the huts themselves, were exclusively and beneficially occupied by the contractors for a sufficient length of time, they would become rateable hereditaments. The presence of the huts thereon would merely be an element enhancing the value of their occupation. In this case their presence is also a factor to be taken into consideration in deciding whether there has been a sufficient ‘carving out’ or appropriation of a particular portion of the site to amount to exclusive occupation by the contractors.’
Earl Jowitt thought it would not have been in the least surprising if the Lands Tribunal had come to a conclusion of fact that the structures in that case were ‘of such a transient nature’ as to justify their exclusion from the valuation bill; ‘they might be of such an unsubstantial and ephemeral character as to make it obvious that they should not be included’ on the valuation roll.
Viscount Kilmuir LC, Tucker, Oaksey, Radcliffe LL, Earl Jowitt
[1957] AC 362
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – 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 by:
Cited – Field Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding CA 1966
The Court considered the rateability of a residential caravan site. The caravans were on wheels and retained their mobility although they were jacked up to keep them stable.
Held: Although a chattel is not a rateable hereditament by itself, it . .
Cited – Cinderella Rockerfellas Ltd v Rudd (Valuation Officer) CA 11-Apr-2003
The taxpayer appealed against a rating assessment on a barge permanently moored at a riverbank. He claimed that as a chattel, it should not be rated.
Held: The vessel was a chattel, but its occupation could be an occupation of the riverbed. . .
Cited – Reeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop Admn 6-Mar-2012
The respondent occupied a tugboat with his family as his home. The appellant authority had sought to charge council tax, saying that it was a dwelling. The boat was not a houseboat but a live-aboard seagoing vessel, registered in the Small Ships . .
Cited – Reeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop CA 17-Apr-2013
The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Rating, Land
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.181043