Milford Haven Conservancy Board v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 1976

The Minister had power to make provision by order for determining rateable values ‘by such method as may be so specified’. The formula prescribed by the Minister for dock undertakings was based on 4% of their receipts, including receipts from some parts of their property which had been let and on which the occupiers were therefore paying rates in the ordinary way. The Milford Haven Conservancy Board complained that the order was ultra vires because it involved double taxation.
Held: The statute entitled the Secretary of State to prescribe any method of valuation, however far it departs from previously established principles . . rateable value, whenever it departs from net annual value, either by being related to net annual value in some specific way or by being assessed without reference to net annual value, is an artificial concept. The profits basis of valuation was a means of estimating the rent that the hypothetical tenant would pay. But none of the methods of assessment under sections 31 to 35 have that character. Water, gas and electricity undertakings are dealt with on the basis of supply. Mines and quarries . . are given a rateable value ascertained by applying a fraction . . to the rateable value previously assessed.’


Cairns LJ


[1976] 1 WLR 817


England and Wales


CitedKingston Union v Metropolitan Water Board HL 1926
The principle for valuation of properties for rating was to estimate ‘the rent at which the hereditaments might reasonably be expected to let from year to year’. But in applying that principle, so simple in appearance, to certain classes of . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Central Valuation Officer and another ex parte Edison First Power Limited HL 10-Apr-2003
Powergen sold a property to Edison. Powergen had paid rates under a separate statutory rating regime, and paid an additional thirteen million pounds under an apportionment. Edison later complained that in being rated itself, the authorities had . .
CitedNorth Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Delayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182920