A public house was to be valued for rating under the 1869 Act. The question was whether the 1920 regulations, which limited the rent which could be charged, limited also the rating value.
Held: The statutory hypothesis used in setting a rateable value of a hereditament is the means of establishing the value of the occupier’s occupation and that the amount that the occupier actually pays in the real world in order to occupy the hereditament, whether that amount arises from an agreement or by force of statute, will not be evidence of this value unless it accords, or can be adjusted to accord, with the statutory hypothesis. The statutory restriction was not material to the determination of the valuation for the purposes of rating.
Buckmaster L said: ‘From the earliest time, it is the inhabitant that has to be taxed. It is in respect of his occupation that the rate is levied, and the standard in the Act is nothing more but a means of finding out what the value of that occupation is for the purposes of the assessment. In my opinion, the rent that the tenant might reasonably be expected to pay is the rent which, apart from all conditions affecting or limiting its receipt in the hands of the landlord, would be regarded as a reasonable rent for the tenant who occupied under the conditions which the statute of 1869 imposes.’ Lord Parmoor: ‘ Under 43 Eliz.c.2, rates are to be levied upon every occupier of lands, houses etc. The distinction between occupier and owner, in this connection, is of primary importance. The occupation of property may be, and often is, distinct from its value to the owner. This distinction would probably be emphasised where an artificial statutory maximum is fixed and a statutory restriction prevents an owner from recovering from any tenant a greater amount, as rent, than the statutory maximum.’
Lord Buckmaster, Lord Parmoor, Lord Atkinson, Lord Carson
 AC 93
Valuation (Metropolis) Act 1869, Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920
England and Wales
Cited – Orange PCS v Alan Roy Bradford (Valuation Officer) CA 17-Feb-2004
The claimant challenged the rating of the land it had used for the erection of a mobile ohone mast.
Held: Even though the company had the statutory right to place a mast in this location and without payment, for rating purposes the officer . .
Cited – Newbigin (Valuation Officer) v SJ and J Monk (A Firm) SC 1-Mar-2017
The court was asked: ‘Does a commercial building which is in the course of redevelopment have to be valued for the purposes of rating as if it were still a useable office? ‘
Held: Appeal from decision of CA granted. On the facts found by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.193770