When assessing the ratable value of premises, the value had to be determined with respect to the actual use made, and the value of the building in that use. The fact that a building was in an area where with a different use a much greater return could be achieved did not signify. The tribunal’s job was to assess the actual value, not some potential value.
Walker LJ said: ‘It is worth noting in passing that references to the ‘physical’ state or enjoyment of property in para 2(7)(a) and (d) represent a statutory reversal of the decision of the House of Lords in Addis Ltd v. Clement  RA 25, a decision on s 20 of the 1967 Act.’
Times 06-Mar-2001, Gazette 11-May-2001,  EWCA Civ 185,  RA 41,  1 EGLR 157,  9 EGCS 227,  NPC 46
England and Wales
Cited – Clement (VO) v Addis Ltd HL 1988
The ratepayer complained that an enterprise zone set up near his property had depressed the value of his property which should have been reflected in a reduced rateable value. He appealed a decision that section 20 related only to physical changes . .
Cited – Chilton-Merryweather v Hunt and others CA 19-Sep-2008
The council tax payers sought to reduce the banding for his house saying that it was adversely affected in value by being located so close to the motorway as to be affected by noise.
Held: The House of Lords decision in Addis had been reversed . .
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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.147436