Regina v East Sussex Valuation Tribunal Ex Parte Silverstone: QBD 10 May 1996

There were two flats, which the applicant bought with a view to carrying out extensive repairs and converting into one unit. This went only slowly, the work being done by the applicant himself. The applicant had in fact been living in the property, although he said it was vacant for about three months after he bought it. The property concerned was included in the initial valuation list as two separate dwellings, both of which were placed in band C, but in July 1993 the applicant made a proposal to alter the list on the basis that the dwellings should have been included in the valuation list as one entry. The applicant submitted that the dwelling did not, at the relevant date, comply with the statutory assumptions which are set out in Regulation 6.
Held: Conversion of two houses to one requires a new valuation, not an amalgamation. Nevertheless, the simple question before the court was one of law, namely whether the assumptions in that legislation are rebuttable. Carnwath J concluded that they were not rebuttable. He said that an assumption is by definition a hypothesis which may be adopted whether or not it is in fact true.
Carnwath J
Times 10-May-1996, [1996] RVR 203
Council Tax (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWilson v Josephine Coll (Listing Officer) Admn 13-Oct-2011
The land owners challenged the re-appearance of their empty and disrepaired dweliinghouse in the valuation list. It had been exempt for twelve months. The appellanat said that the appeal property was not a hereditament as it was not in reasonable . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.86620