Site icon swarb.co.uk

Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Newham London Borough Council: CA 1976

The Court considered an appeal by the owners of offices, which were in the course of erection, against completion notices under para 8 of Schedule 1 to the 1967 Act. The court held that the test for completion of a new building or an existing hereditament undergoing structural alteration was whether it was ready for occupation.
Lord Denning MR in the course of his judgment said that Easiwork had been correctly decided because the old valuation list, unless it was altered, continued to apply.
Bridge LJ, who had sat in the Easiwork appeal said: ‘It is clear that in a situation where an old existing hereditament has a valuation based on its occupiable value and is undergoing radical structural alterations, it can be the subject of a proposal for an alteration in the valuation list for, at all events, any substantial period when by reason of the alteration it is incapable of occupation. That seems to me to provide the answer to the problem of hardship to an owner which in the Divisional Court we felt could arise in the Easiwork case.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Bridge LJ

Citations:

[1976] QB 464

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedEasiwork Homes Ltd v Redbridge London Borough Council QBD 1970
The Court considered liability for a domestic rate during a period when a block of flats was being upgraded. Under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the General Rate Act 1967, where a relevant hereditament was unoccupied for a continuous period exceeding . .

Cited by:

CitedNewbigin (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.

Rating

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.640542

Exit mobile version