Tag: Rating

Union Cold Storage Co Ltd v Southwark Assessment Committee: QBD 1932

The rateability of certain cooling chambers in a warehouse used for storing food. 25% of what was undertaken there may have been freezing food and the remaining 75% storing food.
Held: Macnaughten J discussed the cold storage plant and refrigerating plant in the building saying that it was ‘admittedly plant on the hereditament for the purpose of manufacturing operations or trade processes’

Citations:

(1932) 16 R and IT 160

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) SC 7-Mar-2018
Air System plant excluded from Rating value
The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes.
Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) CA 23-Nov-2016
The court was asked whether the air handling system used by Iceland Foods Limited in its retail store at Liverpool was plant or machinery ‘used or intended to be used in connection with services mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.605774

Smith (a bankrupt) v Braintree District Council: HL 1989

The House considered the effects of bankruptcy on the imposition of a committal to imprisonment in default of paying rates.
The purpose of section 285 is to preserve the estate of the bankrupt for the benefit of his unsecured creditors.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said that, in view of the changes in policy shown by the new Act, he felt justified in construing the provision of the Act of 1986 ‘as a piece of new legislation without regard to 19th century authorities or similar provisions of repealed Bankruptcy Acts.’

Judges:

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Citations:

[1989] 3 All ER 897, [1989] 3 WLR 1317, [1990] 2 AC 215

Statutes:

Bankruptcy Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bristol Airport Plc and Another v Powdrill and Others CA 21-Dec-1989
An airline company went into administration. The airport seized two airplanes. The administrators claimed they were property within the administration, could not be seized without a court order, and the court should exercise its discretion not to . .
Cited – Harlow District Council v Hall CA 28-Feb-2006
The defendant had been subject to a possession order in respect of his secure tenancy. He was later adjudged bankrupt. He asserted that the bankruptcy specifically prevented other action to enforce the debt, and the suspended possession order was . .
Cited – Poulton v Ministry of Justice CA 22-Apr-2010
The claimant was trustee in bankruptcy but the court failed to register the bankruptcy petition at the Land Registry as a pending action. The bankrupt was therefore able to sell her land, and the trustee did not recover the proceeds. The trustee . .
Cited – In re Mordant CA 1996
The court discussed the interplay of family and insolvency proceedings: ‘Since the wife is unable to prove in the husband’s bankruptcy, the position . . is that the husband’s trustee must use the andpound;385,000 in paying the trustee’s expenses . .
Cited – McRoberts v McRoberts ChD 1-Nov-2012
The parties had agreed to an ancillary relief order on their divorce. The husband was made bankrupt without having paid the lump sum agreed. The former wife and now claimant had received no dividend. Debts which were not provable in the bankruptcy . .
Cited – Singh v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 15-May-2010
UTTC JUDICIAL REVIEW – the concession of ‘equitable liability’ known as the Noble practice – standing to bring judicial review proceedings – no.
The bankrupt objected to the attempted proof by the Revenue in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Rating

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.181067

Mouland, Re Gatwick Airport: UTLC 6 Feb 2012

UTLC RATING – valuation – airport business centre – lease containing restrictions on use to meet requirements of airport operator landlord – whether use as business centre in same category or mode of use as office use – held it was not – rent payable better evidence of value than tone of value for offices – appeal dismissed – RV confirmed at andpound;170,000

Judges:

N J Rose FRICS

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 32 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452857

Brighton and Hove City Council v Brighton and Hove Justices and Hamdan: QBD 29 Jul 2004

Stanley Burnton J said that he had no doubt that the appropriate procedure for challenging decisions relating to liability orders is by way of case stated: ‘ the appropriate procedure to challenge the decision of the justices of 28 May 2003 was by appeal by way of case stated. This is the normal procedure for challenging errors of law by justices. It has a number of advantages, not the least of which is that the discipline of a case stated normally ensures that the High Court has before it a statement by the justices of the issues they had to decide, the evidence before them, their findings of fact and the reasons for their decision. If the case stated is defective (because, for example, the justices’ statement of their findings of fact is ambiguous), it may be remitted to them for amendment: see the Practice Direction to Part 52 at 52PD.76. The reasons of the justices in the present case are relatively informal, and do not include what I would expect to see in a case stated. Furthermore, in an appeal by way of case stated, this Court is able to make any order that the lower court might have made: see CPR Part 52.10 (1). The powers of this court on judicial review are more limited: it can quash the lower court’s order and order it to make another order only if that other order is the only one properly open to it.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Burnton

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1800 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Magistrates

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.200305

Dell (Valuation Officer) v Daya and Another: UTLC 7 May 2010

UTLC RATING – valuation – shops – 2005 rating list – disturbance to trade by roadworks agreed to have affected value – extent of rateable value reduction to reflect such disturbance – appeals allowed

Judges:

A J Trott FRICS

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 132 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416745

Allen (Valuation Officer) v English Sports Council and Another: UTLC 25 Sep 2009

UTLC RATING – valuation – National Sports Centre – contractor’s test – stage 5 allowance – improvement of facilities with pounds 10m lottery grant – whether deduction to be made for grant – held no allowance to be made – site liable to flood – allowance for this – VO’s appeal allowed in substantial part – ratepayer’s cross-appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 187 (LC), [2009] RA 289

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415023

English Speaking Union Scottish Branches Educational Fund, Re Judicial Review: SCS 27 Oct 2009

Lord Bonomy set out the condition to be passed for a charities trading activities to be chartable for exemption from rating namely that the Court should look at the whole of the evidence before it and decide, on a broad basis, whether the premises were being used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes, so as to give content to the full expression ‘wholly or mainly used’.

Judges:

Lord Bonomy

Citations:

[2009] ScotCS CSOH – 139, [2010] RA 227

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Rating, Charity

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377245

Watts v Preston City Council: Admn 27 Apr 2009

The appellant said that the Valuation Tribunal had erred in law in determining that he was liable for Council Tax on a property.

Judges:

Langstaff J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2179 (Admin), [2009] RA 334

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Finance Act 1992 8, Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374372

Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council: Admn 22 Jan 2013

The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the phrase in the way contended for by the Appellant. As was pointed out in the English Speaking Union case and again in argument before us, the Appellant’s construction would substitute the word ‘solely’ for the word ‘wholly’. I see no reason why the statute should be thus narrowly confined. The natural reading and meaning of the words used, are, in my judgment, apt to cover not only consideration of the purpose of the use, but also the extent or amount of the actual use. It follows therefore that I would hold that the judge was right to take account of and place weight upon the extent to which the premises were used.’ However the district Judge’s decision could not be sustained: ‘ he took into account other factors which he should not have or which he did not analyse sufficiently.’ . . And ‘Whilst the judge was entitled to have regard to the English Speaking Union case and to look at the whole of the evidence before him and decide on a broad basis whether the premises were being used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes, and whilst the judge was correct to take into account the extent to which the premises were used, he also wrongly took account of other factors.’

Judges:

Treacy LJ, King J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 54 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 23, [2013] 3 WLR 422, [2013] 2 EGLR 138, [2014] 1 QB 62, [2013] RA 75, [2013] WLR(D) 23

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement)(Local Lists) Regulations 1989, Local Government Finance Act 1988 43(6), Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Makro Properties Limited v Nuneaton and Bedworth BC Admn 2012
A minor use will constitute rateable occupation for the purposes of liability to occupied rates. . .
Cited – English Speaking Union Scottish Branches Educational Fund, Re Judicial Review SCS 27-Oct-2009
Lord Bonomy set out the condition to be passed for a charities trading activities to be chartable for exemption from rating namely that the Court should look at the whole of the evidence before it and decide, on a broad basis, whether the premises . .
Cited – Gage v Wren 1903
. .
Cited – Wynn v Skegness UDC 1967
. .
Cited – Glasgow Corporation v Johnstone and Others (orse Johnstons) HL 1965
A house lived in by a church officer was occupied for rating purposes by the church’s congregational board which employed him, and so was not liable for full rates. Lord Hodson said: ‘The distinction is usually shortly stated in this way: if the . .
Cited – Oxfam v Birmingham City District Council HL 1976
The appellant charity had the relief of poverty as its main object, a recognised ‘charitable purpose’. It operated gift shops used for sorting and selling donated articles of clothing as well as selling products made in the developing world. All of . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v O’Reilly and others CA 1-Jul-2003
The defendant sought to appeal against a decision of the High Court on a case stated by the Magistrates.
Held: A decision by the High Court on an appeal by way of case stated from the Magistrates was final, and no further appeal lay to the . .
Cited – Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2) CA 22-Jun-2005
The Court of Apeal had previously considered an appeal from the grant of a liability order made by magistrates. It had become clear that the order had been made without jurisdiction.
Held: The order must be set aside. The court had no . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Berriman QBD 2008
The Court permitted parallel case stated and Judicial Review proceedings to take place before it. . .
Cited – Regina (Magon) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham CA 7-May-1998
Mummery LJ refused permission to seek Judicial Review on the ground that the case stated procedure is the appropriate one available to question the correctness of a liability order made by the Magistrates’ Court. . .
Cited – Brighton and Hove City Council v Brighton and Hove Justices and Hamdan QBD 29-Jul-2004
Stanley Burnton J said that he had no doubt that the appropriate procedure for challenging decisions relating to liability orders is by way of case stated: ‘ the appropriate procedure to challenge the decision of the justices of 28 May 2003 was by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Charity

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.470484

Re CIP Lounges at Heathrow Airport: LT 16 Mar 2009

RATING – valuation – value of lounges at Heathrow airport following events of 11 September 2001 in New York – claimed effects on passenger numbers and aircraft movements – whether matters physically manifest in locality – VT holding that they were though masked by other factors and reducing RVs – held VT wrong to conclude masked effects were manifest – Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sched 6 para 2(7)(d).

Citations:

[2009] EWLands RA – 59 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Finance Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341635

Townley Mill (1919) Limited v Oldham Assessment Committee: KBD 1936

Lord Hewart CJ said: ‘When one turns to the Third Schedule of the [1925] Act, it is apparent that it enumerates that type of machinery and plant which is conveniently described in the case as motive machinery; it is the machinery without which the mill could not begin to work, as, for example, the generation of power, heating and cooling, lifts and elevators, railways, tramlines and tracks, and other things, the foundation of that which was to become the work of the mill. When the machinery and plant referred to in the Third Schedule are eliminated, what is left is the kind of machinery which is concisely described in this case as process plant and machinery, operative plant and machinery, working and manufacturing plant and machinery.’
and ‘ . . the effect of this [1925] Act, intended to be an Act beneficial to those interested in the carrying on of industry, was to get rid of all the doctrine of enhanced value and to lay it down that what is called process plant and machinery must henceforth be disregarded where the problem is to ascertain the rateable value of the hereditament where plant and machinery are used. It is nothing to the purpose, in my opinion, to say apart from the use of the machinery and plant, there may be buildings called warehouses which for other commercial purposes do store or keep dry machinery and plant. It is not to be said that they are not to be rated because they contain machinery and plant. Of course, that could not be said. We are concerned with the rating of a hereditament which contains machinery and plant for the purpose of the carrying on of the work in that hereditament. The statute, in my opinion, makes it quite plain that in such a case and for such purposes, process plant and machinery are to be excluded.’

Judges:

Lord Hewart CJ, Hawke, Lawrence JJ

Citations:

[1936] 1 KB 585

Statutes:

Rating and Valuation Act 1925 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At Divisional Court – Townley Mill (1919) Limited v Oldham Assessment Committee HL 1937
Section 24 of the 1925 Act was considered.
Held: The House re-instated the decision at divisional level. The court described the basis upon which a property was to be valued for rating purposes. Viscount Maugham said it concerned: ‘ a . .
Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) SC 7-Mar-2018
Air System plant excluded from Rating value
The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes.
Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) CA 23-Nov-2016
The court was asked whether the air handling system used by Iceland Foods Limited in its retail store at Liverpool was plant or machinery ‘used or intended to be used in connection with services mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.605770

Arbuckle Smith and Co Limited v Greenock Corporation: HL 1960

The appellants had purchased a building which they wished to use as a bonded warehouse. In order to obtain the necessary licence they were required to carry out works of upgrading and repair. The rating authority made a demand for ‘occupied’ rates for a period during which the works were being carried out but the building was not yet being used for its intended purpose.
Held: Entry by the appellants for the purpose of maintenance, repair or conversion did not constitute occupation.

Citations:

[1960] AC 813

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Pall Mall Investments (London) Ltd v Gloucester City Council Admn 8-Jul-2014
The land-owner appealed by case stated against an assessment to unoccupied, non-domestic rate demands. The land-owner said that they were unoccupied through dilapidations and therefore exempt. They said that the court had wrongly disregarded their . .
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.

Rating

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.533872

Northamptonshire Valuation Tribunal, Re an Appeal Against A Decision By: LT 21 Nov 2008

LT RATING – valuation – 2005 list – distribution warehouse – whether passing rent for appeal hereditament most reliable evidence or whether other rental and/or assessment evidence to be preferred – whether tone of the list established – valuation officer’s appeal allowed – RV increased from andpound;410,000 to andpound;470,000

Citations:

[2008] EWLands RA – 57 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278639

Gray, Regina (on the Application of) v Bristol City Council: Admn 3 Sep 2008

The taxpayer had been receiving jobseekers allowance. He received an award of damages for personal injury, and the respondent council suspended his housing benefit. He now sought judicial review of that decision. The council asked several silly questions about his circumstances. The council now said that the suspension had been temporary, and that the proceedings were unnecessary, and sought costs.
Held: Permission to bring a review was refused.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2212 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating, Benefits

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276534

In Re Kentish Homes Ltd: ChD 31 Mar 1993

The question was whether a post-liquidation liability to community charge on empty flats was an expense of the liquidation.
Held: The company was the chargeable person in respect of the flats for the relevant periods, but the liability was nevertheless not a liquidation expense. It would rank as such only if the court, as a matter of discretion, directed the liquidators to discharge the obligation out of the assets in their hands. There was however no ground upon which the court should do so.
Sir Donald Nicholls V-C said: ‘whether debts should count as expenses of the liquidation is a matter for the discretion of the court’

Judges:

Sir Donald Nicholls V-C

Citations:

Gazette 31-Mar-1993, [1993] BCLC 1375

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – In re Atlantic Computer Systems Plc CA 1992
The chargor was a company which arranged with the chargee, a funding bank, that it should purchase equipment and let it on hire purchase to the chargor with permission to sub-lease to end users. The chargor charged to the chargee by way of security . .
Cited – In re Lundy Granite Co; Ex parte Heavan CA 1871
The landlord of Lundy Island, which was let to a third party, distrained upon goods of the company which had been left upon the tenant’s property. The distraint was for rent which had fallen due more than a year after the winding up order. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kahn and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue; In re Toshoku Finance plc HL 20-Feb-2002
A company went into liquidation, being owed substantial sums by another company in the same group, but itself insolvent. A settlement did not include accrued interest, but was claimed to be taxed as if it had, and on an accruals basis. If so, was . .
Cited – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Rating

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.81975

Valuation Officer v Citibank Na: LT 7 Feb 2007

LT RATING – hereditament – alteration of rating list – office building extended floor by floor into new adjoining building – series of alterations to list to reflect each extension – whether each extension had effect of creating new hereditament – whether alterations valid – effective date of alterations – appeals allowed – Non-Domestic Rating (Material Day for List Alterations) Regulations 1992 reg 3 – Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists an Appeals) Regulations 1993 reg 13A

Citations:

[2007] EWLands RA – 66 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Rating

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249410

Lane v Woolway: LT 9 Aug 2006

LT RATING – valuation – 2000 rating list – private members club – scaffolding to neighbouring building works severely impeding access – previous assessment omitting value of part of hereditament – whether assessment to be deleted … deduction appropriate to reflect disability relevance of previous underassessment (assessment reduced temporarily to RV andpound;5,500.

Judges:

Rose FRICS

Citations:

[2006] EWLands RA – 57 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Rating

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245452

Humphreys-Jones (T/A Cathedral Frames) v Welsby (VO): LT 21 Mar 2001

LT RATING – annual value – lock-up shop – valuation – rents and assessments of comparable premises – mode or category of occupation – rebus sic stantibus – ratepayers appeal allowed in part – assessment reduced from andpound;2,550 RV to andpound;2,430 RV

Citations:

[2001] EWLands RA – 29 – 2000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225640

Mainstream Ventures Ltd v Woolway (VO): LT 26 May 2000

LT RATING – proposal made by person no longer in occupation – Non-Domestic Rating (Alterations and Appeals) Regulations 1993 – VO raising invalidity of proposal for first time in Lands Tribunal – held entitled to do so – ratepayer’s appeal therefore dismissed

Citations:

[2000] EWLands RA – 56 – 1999

Links:

Bailii

Rating

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225594

Telereal Trillium v Hewitt (Valuation Officer): CA 19 Jan 2018

The land owner appealed from a finding that the offices which it could not let for lack of commercial demand had a rating list valuation of pounds 370,000.
Held: The valuation was set aside and replaced with a value reflecting the market value of pounds 1.00.

Judges:

Sir Ernest Ryder SPT, Davis, Henderson LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 26, [2018] 1 WLR 3463, [2018] WLR(D) 32

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At UTLC – Hewitt (VO) v Telereal Trillium UTLC 16-Jun-2016
Entry of nil valuation on list
UTLC RATING – Valuation – non- domestic hereditament – Local Government Finance Act 1988 schedule 6 – appeal to Upper Tribunal raising a point of law upon agreed facts – agreement that had the subject office . .

Cited by:

At CA – Telereal Trillium v Hewitt (Valuation Officer) SC 15-May-2019
The court considered correct approach to determination of the rateable value of an office building, in circumstances where the evidence showed at the relevant time a general demand in the area for comparable office buildings, but no actual tenant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.602964

National Car Parks Ltd v Baird (Valuation Officer) and Another: CA 22 Jul 2004

The claimant appealed against valuations by the defendants. They complained that the statute imposed a duty on them to alter the rating lists to accpord with agreements as to their value.
Held: The statute imposed no time scale for the defendants to implement the changes. What time was proper therefore required the court to look at all the circumstances. Indeed in this case the claimants could establish any right to have the lists changed at all.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Vice-Chancellor, The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 967, Times 09-Sep-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Finance Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199487

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 could ask what would be the cost of the company taking a lease of the land. The valuation was correct.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Jacob Lord Justice Thomas

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 155, Times 20-Feb-2004, Gazette 26-Feb-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Telecommunications Act 1984, Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sch6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hoare and Another v National Trust CA 13-Oct-1998
The rating hypothesis must be interpreted to allow for the actual policies of the tenant. Where the tenant would not overbid despite the finding that properties of this type could not be managed to produce a profit. Nil rating was appropriate. Peter . .
Cited – Townley Mill (1919) Limited v Oldham Assessment Committee HL 1937
Section 24 of the 1925 Act was considered.
Held: The House re-instated the decision at divisional level. The court described the basis upon which a property was to be valued for rating purposes. Viscount Maugham said it concerned: ‘ a . .
Cited – Poplar Assessment Committee v Roberts HL 1922
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 . .
Cited – Dawkins (Valuation Officer) v Ash Brothers and Heaton HL 1969
The House considered the statutory principle of valuation for rating purposes: ‘But one excludes human realities to a limited and necessary extent, since it is only the human realities that give any value at all to hereditaments. They are excluded . .
Cited – Robinson Brothers (Brewers) Ltd v Houghton and Chester-Le-Street Assessment Committee CA 1937
The enquiry which set the value of land for rating was economic not legal in nature. The passing rent, if determined by the operation of the market, would carry significant weight in that process.
Scott LJ said: Where the particular . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193582

Rodney District Council and others v Attorney General: PC 7 Oct 2002

(New Zealand) The appeal concerned the rating of properties. Where two properties were held under the same land certificates, was this enough to have require only one listing on the valuation roll. New Zealand uses the Torrens style of Land Registration, under which, it was argued, the unit of registration determined also entries for ‘separate properties’. This has its origin in Scots law. The authorities contended that the test was rather the unit of occupation.
Held: The expression ‘separate property’ was not defined. It was to be interpreted within the context in which it was used. In this case that meant rating, not land law, and it was dangerous to bring forward meanings for wordings from earlier statutes. Separate occupation was the correct criterion.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

Citations:

[2002]UKPC 47, [2003] RA 180

Links:

Bailii, PC

Statutes:

Rating Valuations Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating, Registered Land

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177998

The Taff Vale Railway Company v The Local Board Of Health For The District Of Cardiff: 18 Nov 1857

The maintenance of the highways within the district of a local board of health must be provided for by a district rate, and not by a highway rate, whether the district be or be not conterminous with an ancient parochial division.

Citations:

[1857] EngR 898, (1857) 8 El and Bl 535, (1857) 120 ER 200

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.290644

Regina (ex parte Edison First Power Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport, Same v Central Valuation Officer: Admn 31 Mar 2000

Judges:

Carnwath J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 317, [2000] RA 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Edison First Power Ltd v The Secretary of State for Department of Environment Transport and the Regions CA 12-Jul-2001
. .
At First Instance – Regina 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 . .
Appeal from – Edison First Power Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions CA 12-Jul-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140131

Home Office v Jackson (Valuation Officer): UTLC 19 Jul 2018

RATING – valuation – 2010 compiled list entry of large high-quality modern office building – building constructed in three blocks with bridge connections on certain floors – main space rate – comparables of similar quality but different location – whether adjustment required to comparables for location – method of adjustment – allowance claimed for quantum – allowance also claimed for fragmentation to reflect alleged disadvantages of the layout in three blocks – appeal allowed in part – rateable value determined at pounds 22,700,000

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 171 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.620101

Regent Lion Properties Limited v Westminster City Council: CA 1990

An existing outline planning permission to develop land to include a parade of 12 shops in central London. In 1968 Pan American Airways Corporation took a sub-lease of the land and got planning permission to develop it as an air terminal for a period of 14 years, terminating (with an extension) on 31 March 1984. PanAm vacated the land in 1981 and paid unoccupied rates until 31 March 1984. The owner commenced work to return the land to its ‘shell condition’, as it was before PanAm’s occupation. On 30 March 1984 Westminster City Council issued a notice under the Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 requiring the company to cease work until specified remedial work had been carried out to remove brown asbestos. That work was completed on 21 May 1985. The Council levied an unoccupied rate for the period between 1 April 1984 and 25 December 1985. The magistrates’ court ordered the issue of a distress warrant against the company in respect of the unoccupied rates. The Divisional Court had held that the owners were exempt from liability for rates for the period between 1 April 1984 and 21 May 1985 by virtue of paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of Schedule 1 to the General Rate Act 1967 which provided: ‘No rates shall be payable under Part 1 of the Schedule in respect of a hereditament for, or for any part of the standard period beginning with the day following the end of, any period during which:
(a) the owner is prohibited by law from occupying their hereditament or allowing it to be occupied;
(b) the hereditament is kept vacant by reason of action taken by or on behalf of . . any local or public authority with a view to prohibiting the occupation of the hereditament or to acquiring it.’ After 21 May 1985 no exemption was due since implementation of the earlier planning permission was possible and occupation was not, therefore, prohibited by law. The rating authority appealed to the Court of Appeal in respect of the earlier period and the owner cross-appealed in respect of the subsequent period.
Held: There was no evidence to support the conclusion that by its notice the local authority was intending to prohibit the occupation of the hereditament within the meaning of paragraph 2(b). Therefore, the sole issue with regard to the earlier period was whether during that period the owner was ‘prohibited by law’ within the meaning of paragraph 2(a) from occupying or allowing the hereditament to be occupied. The argument for the rating authority was that the notice did not prohibit occupation. The Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 contained no power to prohibit occupation. The statutory powers were aimed at prohibiting an activity upon premises.
Having considered the Tower Hamlets case, Glidewell LJ expressed no doubt that the decision was correct. However, he did not consider that Tower Hamlets provided the answer to the instant case. He identified the question to be considered as follows: ‘Where the effect of a prohibition notice is proved to be that the hereditament may not be rateably occupied until some steps have been taken, is its occupation prohibited by law?’ and he answered: ‘The factual position here was that the planning permission for use as an air terminal expired on the 31 March 1984. Thereafter during the period at issue, there was no use of the hereditament for that purpose for over two years after PanAm vacated. In order that the hereditament might be occupied for some other commercial purpose, the respondent company needed to return it firstly to its original condition as a shell. It was the work necessary to put it in that condition which was prohibited by the notice. This, therefore, had the inevitable effect of preventing rateable occupation until both the remedial work to cure the asbestos problem and the subsequent refurbishment work had been carried out. Since that was the inevitable effect, in my judgment the effect of the notice was to prohibit by law the occupation of the premises until the remedial work had been completed. That was on the 21 May 1985. It followed that the owner was exempt from the unoccupied rate for the period between 1 April 1984 and 31 May 1985.’
As to the cross-appeal, however, it will be recalled that the removal of brown asbestos, ‘the remedial work’, was completed on 21 May 1985. The owner’s case was that, since there was no longer extant planning permission for the use of the property in its current condition, it was prohibited by law from occupying the property. Having considered the authorities, Glidewell LJ concluded: ‘In my judgment, the law does not prohibit an owner or occupier of property from using it for a particular purpose simply because planning permission for that use is necessary under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and has not been granted. Such a use becomes prohibited if, and only if, an enforcement notice is served and takes effect, or a stop notice is served, or if by other processes an injunction is granted against that particular use.’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ, Mann LJ and Sir Denys Buckley

Citations:

[1990] RA 121

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pall Mall Investments (London) Ltd v Gloucester City Council Admn 8-Jul-2014
The land-owner appealed by case stated against an assessment to unoccupied, non-domestic rate demands. The land-owner said that they were unoccupied through dilapidations and therefore exempt. They said that the court had wrongly disregarded their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.533874

Kirby v Hunslet Union Assessment Committee: HL 1906

The Act provided that the assessment of hereditaments was regulated on the principle that the rateable value was the rent which might be expected to be given for the hereditament alon
Held: The House disapproved a distinction based on whether the plant was a fixture, in the traditional land law sense. A factory’s assessment to poor rate must be based on the standing equipment of machinery in the factory, irrespective of whether or not it was affixed to the freehold so as to form part of it.
Held: The House disapproved a distinction based on whether the plant was a fixture, in the traditional land law sense. A factory’s assessment to poor rate must be based on the standing equipment of machinery in the factory, irrespective of whether or not it was affixed to the freehold so as to form part of it.
Lord Halsbury said that he would: ‘decline myself to enter into what I may call the original equities which might have guided this matter. It is, enough for me that a long series of decisions, for certainly half a century, have established the bald proposition, which is all I am insisting upon, namely’. that although the machinery may not be part of the freehold, it yet is to be taken into account, and in saying that, I do not want to muffle it in a phrase, but what I mean by that is, that to increase the amount of the rate which is exacted from the tenant you may enter into that question and form a judgment upon it, although, as a matter of fact, the machinery may hot be attached to the freehold.’

Judges:

Lord Macnaghten,Lord Halsbury

Citations:

[1906] AC 43

Statutes:

Parochial Assessment Act 1836

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Much Criticised – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) SC 7-Mar-2018
Air System plant excluded from Rating value
The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes.
Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) CA 23-Nov-2016
The court was asked whether the air handling system used by Iceland Foods Limited in its retail store at Liverpool was plant or machinery ‘used or intended to be used in connection with services mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Rating

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.605769

Makro Properties Limited v Nuneaton and Bedworth BC: Admn 2012

A minor use will constitute rateable occupation for the purposes of liability to occupied rates.

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2250 (Admin)

Statutes:

Local Government Finance Act 1988 43(6)

Citing:

Cited – Gage v Wren 1903
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567242

Wynn v Skegness UDC: 1967

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 52

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567241

Gage v Wren: 1903

Citations:

[1903] 67 JP 32

Cited by:

Cited – Makro Properties Limited v Nuneaton and Bedworth BC Admn 2012
A minor use will constitute rateable occupation for the purposes of liability to occupied rates. . .
Cited – Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567243

National Deposit Friendly Society Trustees v Skegness Urban District Council: HL 1959

The House considered the meaning of the phrase ‘the advancement of . . social welfare’ in the 1955 Act. Lord Denning said: ‘A person is commonly said to be engaged in ‘social welfare’ when he is engaged in doing good for others who are in need – in the sense that he does it, not for personal or private reasons – not because they are relatives or friends of his – but because they are members of the Community or of a portion of it who need help . . If a person is engaged in improving the conditions of life of others who are so placed as to be in need, he is engaged in ‘social welfare”.

Judges:

Lord Denning

Citations:

[1959] AC 293

Statutes:

Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Guild v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 6-May-1992
The will left land for a sports centre to a local authority which no longer existed. If the gift was charitable, the gift would be applied cy pres, but if not it would fail and pass to the family and be subect to Inheritance Tax.
Held: A gift . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Rating

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.273193

Assessor for Lothian Region v BP Oil Grangemouth Refinery Ltd: 1985

Lands Valuation Appeal Court – a marine terminal at a petrochemical works, used solely for the purpose of loading refined oil, was premises ‘used in an industrial or trade process’

Judges:

Lord Ross

Citations:

(1985) SLT 453

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) SC 7-Mar-2018
Air System plant excluded from Rating value
The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.605776

Hays Business Services Ltd v Raley (Valuation Officer): 1986

A warehouse was used for the storage of archival materials including documents, films and audio-magnetic tapes. For some items of a sensitive nature, there had been installed specialist items of plant, including heating plant, humidifiers, and fire-protection equipment which utilised Halon gas so as to extinguish fires without damaging the stored items. The Solicitor for the Inland Revenue, for the Valuation Officer, had conceded that the specialist heating and humidification equipment were non-rateable.
Held: The tribunal agreed in respect of the fire protection plant, which was not rateable because it was ‘on the hereditament primarily to protect the material that is stored there’. It added: ‘Even if it were to be found that this could only be done by the protection of the building and therefore that that was the main use of the equipment, it would nevertheless not be included within the schedule because it was there expressly for the purpose of the trade process being carried on.’

Judges:

Emlyn Jones FRICS

Citations:

[1986] 1 EGLR 226 (LT)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) SC 7-Mar-2018
Air System plant excluded from Rating value
The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.605777

Union Cold Storage Co Ltd v Bancroft: HL 1931

The House considered whether refrigeration equipment was for storage purposes or for the purposes of altering or adapting goods for sale.
Held: It was for storage purposes, although the refrigeration was described as being by means of an ‘elaborate process’ and it was accepted that a freezing process might alter the goods.

Judges:

Viscount Dunedin

Citations:

[1931] AC 446

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) SC 7-Mar-2018
Air System plant excluded from Rating value
The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes.
Cited – Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer) CA 23-Nov-2016
The court was asked whether the air handling system used by Iceland Foods Limited in its retail store at Liverpool was plant or machinery ‘used or intended to be used in connection with services mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.605775

Newcome v Mathew: 3 May 1832

A new mill erectad on the site of an ancient mill is exempt from tithes : but if it is built partly on the site of the ancient mill, and partly on a new site, it is not exempt. In a suit for tithes betwean a vicar and the occupier of a mill an old map of the parish, belonging to the lord of the manor, was not admiitted as evidence for the Defendant.

Citations:

[1832] EngR 565, (1832) 5 Sim 243, (1832) 58 ER 328

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Ecclesiastical, Rating

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.319512

Regina v James Saunders Randall And William Saunders: 20 Jan 1855

Stat, 5 and 6 w. 4, c. 50, s, 27, enacts that the highway rate shall be upon property rateable to the relief of the poor, ‘provided that the same rate shall also extend to such woods* mines, and quarries of stone, or other hereditaments, as have heretofore been usually rated to the highways.’ — Held, that mines not rateable to the relief of the poor, opened in a parish since the passing of that Act, are rateable to the highway rate, if mines of a similar description were before the Act usually rated to the highways in that parish.

Citations:

[1855] EngR 97, (1855) 4 El and Bl 564, (1855) 119 ER 207

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.292019

Thomas Houghton Hodgson v The Local Board Of Health For The District Of Carlisle: 26 Jun 1857

Real property within the district of a local Board of health cannot be assessed to a district rate, unless there be some person having such an occupation as would make him liable to the poor rate in respect thereof.

Citations:

[1857] EngR 709, (1857) 8 El and Bl 116, (1857) 120 ER 43

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.290455

Midlothian Assessor v Buccleuch Estates Ltd: 1962

(Lands Valuation Appeal Court) The landowner had several parcels of woodland and sawmills. They were on different sites, but worked together as a single business.
Lord Kilbrandon observed: ‘It has never yet been admitted that you can have a unit of valuation consisting of widely scattered heritable subjects connected only by some functional or commercial nexus, and I do not see why it should be. I do not think one is being merely old fashioned or obscurantist in insisting, in the conception of unum quid, on a fairly close physical relationship between what might be considered as parts of a commercial unit; one is, after all, attempting to value not a business but heritable subjects, and it may be that the precedents, which all insist on such a physical relationship, indicate a determination to preserve that essential distinction. . . Not only do I know of no precedent in valuation practice which could justify a functional approach to the problem such as is here sought to be made, but I am still of opinion that no such approach can in this case give a proper content to the whole words of the statute.’

Judges:

Lord Kilbrandon

Citations:

[1962] RA 257

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh 1890
(Lands Valuation Appeal Court) The court considered the rating applicable where several banks retained nearby properties for the occupation of its staff. There were three categories of residential premises: (i) dwellings which were in buildings . .

Cited by:

Approved – Farmer and Another v Buxted Poultry Ltd HL 10-Mar-1993
Buildings which were in fact far apart, could not be treated as being ‘occupied together with’ as agricultural buildings for rating purposes. . .
Cited – Woolway v Mazars SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked how different storeys under common occupation in the same block are to be entered in the rating list for the purpose of non-domestic rating. In this case the firm’s two offices were in the same building, but the connection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591253

University of Glasgow v Assessor for Glasgow: 1952

(Lands Valuation Appeal Court)
Held: Various buildings of the University which were physically separate from the main buildings, capable of being separately let and dispersed among buildings belonging to other proprietors, were properly entered on the valuation roll as separate subjects.
Lord Keith, using the Bank of Scotland Case, treated the case as a geographical one: ‘The common enclosure in many cases supplies a useful basis, or test, for a unum quid entry. It is the reason why a villa with its garden ground, or a mansion house with its policies, and any ancillary buildings are entered as a unum quid. The geographical conception has never been lost sight of in making up entries in the Valuation Roll, and in the case of John Leng and Co v Assessor for Dundee Lord Sands took occasion twice to refer to ‘the ordinary geographical arrangement followed in making up the Valuation Roll’. There may be cases where geographical unity has to be departed from, as where premises within what would otherwise be a single entity are separately let, or lands or buildings within a common enclosure are used for separate purposes. It is not perhaps possible to lay down general rules for all cases. Something must depend on particular circumstances. But the broad general principles are as stated.’

Judges:

Lord Keith

Citations:

1952 SC 504

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Applied – Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh 1890
(Lands Valuation Appeal Court) The court considered the rating applicable where several banks retained nearby properties for the occupation of its staff. There were three categories of residential premises: (i) dwellings which were in buildings . .

Cited by:

Approved – Gilbert v S Hickinbottom and Sons Ltd CA 1956
A large industrial bakery comprised a number of buildings in two blocks separated by a street. The Lands Tribunal held, overruling the valuation officer, that they constituted a single hereditament.
Held: The valuer’s appeal failed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591252

Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh: 1891

(Lands Valuation Appeal Court) The Court considered the appropriate entry for property contiguous with a bank, but with no interconnection, the house being held for the occupation of bank employees.
Held: Lord Wellwood repeated his view that they fell to be separately valued.
Lord Kyllachy, said: ‘The test I think here is whether the houses in question are capable, not merely physically but, all conditions being considered, of being separately let, and having a separate rent or value attached to them. As regards the house occupied by the messenger, and which has no internal communication with the rest of the bank, I agree with the opinion of Lord Wellwood at the last court. I see no reason, at least none appears in the case, why, if the bank chose, this house should not be separately let to a suitable tenant, or assigned by way of pension to an old servant, or otherwise dealt with as a separate and independent dwelling.

Judges:

Lord Traynor, Lord Kyllachy

Citations:

(1891) 18 R 936

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh 1890
(Lands Valuation Appeal Court) The court considered the rating applicable where several banks retained nearby properties for the occupation of its staff. There were three categories of residential premises: (i) dwellings which were in buildings . .

Cited by:

Cited – Woolway v Mazars SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked how different storeys under common occupation in the same block are to be entered in the rating list for the purpose of non-domestic rating. In this case the firm’s two offices were in the same building, but the connection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591251

Burn Stewart Distillers plc v Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board: 2001

(Lands Tribunal for Scotland) Premises under common occupation but situated on opposite sides of a main road constituted two hereditaments: ‘We consider that the emphasis on the geographical test is an aspect of recognition that lands and heritages are physical subjects. The underlying purpose is to provide a proper basis for a tax on property, not a tax on persons or businesses. Where the subjects share characteristics of function which, in a robust practical sense, support the use of a single term to describe the physical subjects, they can be treated as one unit. . . On the other hand, we are satisfied that the fact that certain heritable subjects function together as one business will, by itself, be insufficient to demonstrate that they are to be regarded as a unum quid in any physical sense. A ‘business’ is not a concept based on physical or heritable factors. Entry in the roll is based on identification of heritable subjects. The fact that one business may need to occupy two separate physical subjects does not change the character of the subjects. It is clear that undue emphasis on a business connection as evidence of functional connection between subjects could lead to a distinction for rating purposes between a business whose operating units were in close proximity and those whose operating units were, perhaps only slightly, more remote. There is no basis in legislation for such a distinction. We see no basis in fairness for it. We are not persuaded that there is a consistent practice which would lead to that result. If there is, we see no need to follow it . . In the present case there is a clear physical separation of the two subjects. They each have a clear curtilage and these curtilages are separated by a public road and pavements. . . Although, in a sense, little different from the interposition of a public road, the fact that the ratepayers do not have exclusive occupation of the land which provides their access to that public road and the intermittent presence at their gate of large, slow-moving vehicles belonging to another occupier, tends to enhance the impression of separation of the two subjects. A test based on appearance and impression may properly be treated as part of the geographical test. The two subjects have no unifying visual characteristics. There is nothing to indicate that they are operated together, far less that the physical presence of one is essential to the function of the other. . . Their physical characteristic as two distinct subjects is supported by the consideration that there is no real doubt that the subjects could be let separately.’

Citations:

[2001] RA 110

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Woolway v Mazars SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked how different storeys under common occupation in the same block are to be entered in the rating list for the purpose of non-domestic rating. In this case the firm’s two offices were in the same building, but the connection . .
Not approved – Woolway v Mazars SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked how different storeys under common occupation in the same block are to be entered in the rating list for the purpose of non-domestic rating. In this case the firm’s two offices were in the same building, but the connection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591254

British Railways Board v Hopkins (Valuation Officer): LT 1981

Different storeys under common occupation as constituting a single hereditament, whether they were contiguous or not.

Citations:

[1981] RA 328

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Woolway v Mazars SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked how different storeys under common occupation in the same block are to be entered in the rating list for the purpose of non-domestic rating. In this case the firm’s two offices were in the same building, but the connection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591256

Gilbert v S Hickinbottom and Sons Ltd: CA 1956

A large industrial bakery comprised a number of buildings in two blocks separated by a street. The Lands Tribunal held, overruling the valuation officer, that they constituted a single hereditament.
Held: The valuer’s appeal failed. The application of the test was ‘a question of degree and therefore of fact’, and if the Lands Tribunal thought that it was one hereditament they must have had their reasons. Geographically contiguous spaces are normally to be treated as one hereditament and geographically separate spaces as distinct, but there remain ‘exceptional cases’ where their function required a different treatment.
Denning LJ gave as examples of the treatment of separate premises as one hereditament, the case where a road bisected a nobleman’s park, or agricultural land (in the days when agricultural land was rateable) or a golf course. The common feature of these cases, he thought, was that: ‘the two properties on either side of the road are so essentially one whole – by which I mean, so essential in use the one to another – that they should be regarded as one single hereditament.’
Morris LJ thought it undesirable to lay down general principles to govern what he regarded as a ‘common sense assessmen’. At best the closest that he came to indicating in what circumstances geographically separate spaces might be regarded as a single hereditament was in the following passage: ‘buildings which, though not actually enclosed together or actually contiguous, are very near together and are not separated by the presence of other buildings and are being put to one common use may be regarded as comprising one hereditament. There can be no doubt that ordinarily very great weight will be placed upon what may be termed the geographical test. But the question is always one of fact and degree.’
Parker LJ gave the guidance: ‘Whether or not premises in one occupation fall to be entered in the valuation list as one or more hereditaments depends upon a number of considerations. Without attempting an exhaustive list, the following considerations can be mentioned:
(1) Whether the premises are in more than one rating area. If so, they must be divided into at least the same number of hereditaments as the rating areas in which the premises are situated.
(2) Whether two or more parts of the premises are capable of being separately let. If not, then the premises must be entered as a single hereditament.
(3) Whether the premises form a single geographical unit.
(4) Whether though forming a single geographical unit the premises by their structure and layout consist of two or more separate parts.
(5) Whether the occupier finds it necessary or convenient to use the premises as a whole for one purpose, or whether he uses different parts of the premises for different purposes.
Whereas a consideration of questions (1) and (2) will in certain events conclude the matter one way or the other, the same does not, I think, result from a consideration of any one of the other questions alone. The conclusion, where the considerations of (1) and (2) are not decisive, must depend on the weight to be attached on the facts of each case to the other considerations. No doubt the most important of these other considerations is whether the premises form a geographical unit. Can they be ringed round on a map?’
Parker LJ cited University of Glasgow, and said of the geographical and functional tests: ‘[The geographical test] is so often decisive that it is a convenient starting point to the inquiry, but it is not decisive in all cases. Thus, though the premises may form a geographical unit, the manner in which different parts are used may justify the premises being treated as several hereditaments; cf North Eastern Railway Co v Guardians of York Union [1900] 1 QB 733, 739 per Channell J. The appellant’s contention, however, is that though the functional test may justify treating a geographical unit as two hereditaments, it is wholly inapplicable where the premises occupied are geographically and structurally separate. There is no doubt, I think, that in the latter case little weight will ordinarily be given to any functional connexion, but it is another thing to say that it is irrelevant. If, as is admitted, a functional connexion is a relevant consideration when considering a geographical and structural unit, I fail to see why as a matter of law it cannot be considered at all when there are separate geographical and structural units. Each case must be considered on its particular facts, due weight being given to the degree and nature of the separation on the one hand and the importance of the functional connexion on the other.’

Judges:

Denning LJ, Morris LJ, Parker LJ

Citations:

[1956] 2 QB 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – University of Glasgow v Assessor for Glasgow 1952
(Lands Valuation Appeal Court)
Held: Various buildings of the University which were physically separate from the main buildings, capable of being separately let and dispersed among buildings belonging to other proprietors, were properly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591255

Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh: 1890

(Lands Valuation Appeal Court) The court considered the rating applicable where several banks retained nearby properties for the occupation of its staff. There were three categories of residential premises: (i) dwellings which were in buildings separate from the bank’s offices; (ii) dwellings which were under the same roof as the commercial offices with internal communication between them; and (iii) dwellings which were under the same roof but with no internal communication between them, or none that was in use.
Held: In case (i) the dwellings fell to be valued separately while those in cases (ii) and (iii) were unum quid with the commercial offices. Lord Wellwood agreed with him on cases (i) and (ii), but not on case (iii) which he would have directed to be separately valued. However, the underlying principle applied by both judges was the same. They applied the geographical principle, distinguishing cases where the various bank buildings formed a continuous territorial block from cases where they did not. In those cases where the different buildings did not form a continuous territorial block, they could be treated as unum quid only where there was a necessary functional connection between them.
Lord Trayner said: ‘In the case of the Commercial Bank I think the assessor has gone wrong in including the messengers’ houses as part of the bank. These houses form no part of the bank buildings; they are separate houses in the adjoining street, no doubt sufficiently near to the bank to be convenient and suitable for the bank servants, but still no part of the bank buildings, and therefore no part of the unum quid. The assessor in support of the view he has adopted referred to the case of M’Jannet, 10 R 32, but I do not think that that case has any application here. It was decided in that case that the conservatory, stables, and outhouses connected with a dwelling-house were not to be separately valued, but were to be regarded and valued as a unum quid. I agree entirely with that decision. The different parts of the subject to be valued lay together, and were within the one enclosure; they were the different parts which together went to make up the establishment. But although the stables, for example, were held in that case to be part of the residence and to be so valued, it does not follow that stables are in every case to be valued as part of the residence to which they are an accessory. The stables of a gentleman in town are as much a convenience or accessory to his town residence as they are in the case of a country house. They are not, however, valued along with the town residence, although situated in the adjoining street or mews. They are not so connected – as they were in the case of a country mansion or residence – as to make it impossible or difficult to let them separately. In the same way the Commercial Bank could not well retain their bank premises, and let the part thereof devoted to official residence, but they could quite well and conveniently let the messengers’ houses in the street to persons entirely unconnected with the bank. I think these houses therefore should be separately entered and valued in the Valuation-roll.’
Lord Wellwood divided the residential buildings into three categories: ‘First – Those which are entirely detached from the bank buildings, as in the case of the messengers’ houses of the Commercial Bank of Scotland. I agree with Lord Trayner that the yearly value of those houses should be separately entered in the roll.
Second -The houses which form part of the main building, but have no internal communication with the business premises. I am of opinion that the yearly value of those dwelling-houses also should be separately entered. The fact that they form part of the same building with the business premises is not I think in this question material, and was not much relied on by the respondent. Structurally they are self-contained premises, and could be let separately if this were desired. The respondent relied mainly upon the consideration that the houses form necessary adjuncts to the bank premises, and together with them fell to be valued as a unum quid.
Dwelling-houses for bank officials connected with the bank premises are no doubt usual and useful additions to banking premises, but it is not indispensable that they should form part of the bank buildings, as is shewn in the case of the messengers’ houses of the Commercial Bank of Scotland. If, as is sometimes the case, it did not suit any of the officials to reside in the dwelling-houses, they could be let to a tenant with no more danger to the bank than if they were under a different roof. The case seems to me to be precisely the same as that with which we are familiar of the lower flat of a dwelling-house being converted into a shop with a separate entrance. The upper flats may or may not be occupied by the shopkeeper himself as a dwelling-house, but I take it that in any case the dwelling-house and the shop are valued separately.
Third – Dwelling-houses which are connected by internal communication with the business premises. In regard to those I have more doubt. ‘In their actual state’ they are at present connected with the business premises by an internal door of communication, which is used not merely as a convenient short cut by the occupant of the dwelling-house, but also by other bank officials and servants for the purpose of locking the outer door of the bank and other purposes. This means of communication could be easily cut off by building up or even locking the door. But that is not the present state of matters, and the question being doubtful, I am not prepared to differ from the opinion of Lord Trayner and the Valuation Committee as to those dwelling-houses.’

Judges:

Lord Trayner, Lord Wellwood

Citations:

(1890) 17 R 839

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – Bank of Scotland v Assessor for Edinburgh 1891
(Lands Valuation Appeal Court) The Court considered the appropriate entry for property contiguous with a bank, but with no interconnection, the house being held for the occupation of bank employees.
Held: Lord Wellwood repeated his view that . .
Applied – University of Glasgow v Assessor for Glasgow 1952
(Lands Valuation Appeal Court)
Held: Various buildings of the University which were physically separate from the main buildings, capable of being separately let and dispersed among buildings belonging to other proprietors, were properly . .
Cited – Midlothian Assessor v Buccleuch Estates Ltd 1962
(Lands Valuation Appeal Court) The landowner had several parcels of woodland and sawmills. They were on different sites, but worked together as a single business.
Lord Kilbrandon observed: ‘It has never yet been admitted that you can have a . .
Cited – Woolway v Mazars SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked how different storeys under common occupation in the same block are to be entered in the rating list for the purpose of non-domestic rating. In this case the firm’s two offices were in the same building, but the connection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591250

Nissan Motor Parts Centre Bv v Valuation Officer: LT 23 Jan 2006

LT RATING – valuation – 2000 rating list – large distribution warehouse on estate consisting of mainly bespoke properties – established tone – whether property suffering from disabilities so as to justify adjustments to basic tone value – held property satisfied requirements of occupier – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] EWLands RA – 61 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.238406

Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex parte Cromer Ring Mill Ltd: 1982

Forbes J considered a suggestion that the lower tribiunal had taken into account irrelevant matters: ‘the case wholly supports the formulation in Professor de Smith’s book: ‘If the influence of irrelevant factors is established, it does not appear to be necessary to prove that they were the sole or even the dominant influence; it seems to be enough to prove that their influence was substantial”

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

[1982] 3 All ER 761, [1982] RVR 113

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex parte Owen CA 1985
The BBC is a creation of the Crown through the grant of a Charter in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and it exercises its functions under agreement with and licences from the Government. The court expressly declined to express a view on the . .
Cited – MR, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 10-Mar-2017
The claimant challenged the use of the Royal Prerogative to withdraw his passport. He had as a youth been involved with a terrorist organisation, but said that he now regretted that and was no longer so involved. He had sought to set up a business, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Rating

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.579650

The Company of Ironmongers v Naylor And Others: 1793

If an Act of Parliament impose a duty on ‘all houses and edifices whatsoever,’ with directions on non-payment to distrain, houses in the possession of a corporation, though unfinished, arid never occupied by any tenants whatsoever, are liable to the duty ; and the officers, on demand of payment made to, and refusal by, the corporation, may distrain as well the goods on the premises as elsewhere.

Citations:

[1793] EngR 1088, (1793) 2 Mod 185, (1793) 86 ER 1015 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.357675

Rodd v Ritchings; Gilbert v Childs; Batty v Burfoot; Same v Merriman: QBD 21 Jun 1995

A self contained granny flat was taxable separately. The test of what was self contained remained difficult.

Citations:

Independent 28-Jun-1995, Times 21-Jun-1995

Statutes:

Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 549

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Rating

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88833

Thorntons Plc and Another: UTLC 27 Apr 2018

Rating – Alteration of Rating List – Validity of Proposal Challenging alteration to list made by VO to give effect to agreement – whether abuse of process – Regs. 4, 12, 17 Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulation 2009 – Regs.6(1), 10(2) Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 – appeals allowed and remitted to VTE

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 109 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Co-Operative Group v Virk (Valuation Officer) UTLC 22-Oct-2020
Abuse of Process in Rating Alterations
Rating – Alteration of Rating List – validity of proposal challenging alteration to list made by VO to give effect to agreement – application to strike out appeals from the Valuation Tribunal for Wales and Valuation Tribunal for England – res . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623940

Humphrey v Fenland District Council: Admn 30 Jul 2018

Appeal against the decision of a valuation tribunal that the appellant, Ms Humphrey, is liable to pay Council Tax on a bungalow property at Wisbech in Cambridgeshire on the basis that she is the freehold owner of that property and was in residence at it – meaning, for the relevant purposes, that it was her sole or main residence.

Judges:

avidCooke HHJ

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2195 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621154

Governing Body of Westminster School v Reith (Surveyor of Taxes): HL 22 Oct 1914

The Governors of Westminster School claimed exemption from inhabited-house duty in respect of certain buildings used as class-rooms, and co. The Board of Inland Revenue claimed to assess these buildings under rule 2, Sched. B, of the House Tax Act 1808 as ‘offices.’
Held (Lord Parmoor dissenting) that the buildings in question were not ‘offices,’ and were exempt from assessment.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, Shaw, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 880, [1914] UKHL TC – 6 – 486, [1915] AC 259, 6 TC 486, 52 SLR 880

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620730

Cotton’s Trustees v Inland Revenue: HL 8 Jun 1915

The Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1878, sec. 13, enacts-‘With respect to the duties on inhabited houses . . the following provisions shall have effect-(1) Where any house, being one property, shall be divided into and let in different tenements, and any of such tenements are occupied solely for the purposes of any trade or business, or of any profession or calling by which the occupier seeks a livelihood or profit, or are unoccupied, the person chargeable as occupier of the house shall be at liberty to give notice in writing, at any time during the year of assessment, to the surveyor of taxes for the parish or place in which the house is situate, stating therein the facts; and after the receipt of such notice by the surveyor the Commissioners acting in the execution of the Acts relating to the inhabited-house duties shall, Upon proof of the facts to their satisfaction, grant relief for the amount of duty charged in the assessment, so as to confine the same to the duty on the value according to which the house should, in their opinion, have been assessed, if it had been a house comprising only the tenements other than such as are occupied as aforesaid or are unoccupied.’
Held (diss Lord Sumner) that a single apartment, access to which was obtained by a door opening from a passage leading from an internal staircase, might be a ‘different tenement.’
Circumstances in which held, sustaining judgment of the First Division which reversed the finding of the Commissioners, that premises fell within the terms of the section and were entitled to exemption.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lord Atkinson, Lord Parker, and Lord Sumner

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 713, [1915] UKHL TC – 6 – 590, [1915] AC 922, 6 TC 590, 52 SLR 713

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Rating

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620685

Hyett v Wakefield Council: Admn 9 Jan 2018

Appeal, brought by Mr Hyett, in connection with the findings of the Valuation Tribunal for England under which he was found liable for Council Tax of pounds 136.34 in respect of a property in Wakefield.

Judges:

Belcher HHJ

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 337 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.608913

Alliance and Leicester Building Society v Ghahremani and others: 1992

The court rejected a submission that Mr Justice Vinelott’s view as to the scope of the word ‘document’ was restricted to questions of discovery under the rules of court. He applied the extended meaning of a document described to the question of whether the deliberate deletion of information stored on the disc of an office computer was a contemptuous breach of an order restraining a solicitor from destroying or altering any documents relating to a conveyancing transaction.

Judges:

Hoffmann J

Citations:

[1992] 32 RVR 198

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Derby and Co Ltd And Others v Weldon And Others (No 9) ChD 25-Jul-1990
The court considered the application of rules relating to the discovery of documents to material held on computer: ‘the database of a computer, so far as it contained information capable of being retrieved and converted into readable form, and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Victor Chandler International v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and another CA 8-Mar-2000
A teletext page can be a document for gaming licensing purposes. A bookmaker sought to advertise his services via a teletext page. His services were not licensed in this country, but the advertisements were. It was held that despite the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.235716