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:

CitedPall 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 CriticisedIceland 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.
CitedIceland 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

Gage v Wren: 1903

Citations:

[1903] 67 JP 32

Cited by:

CitedMakro Properties Limited v Nuneaton and Bedworth BC Admn 2012
A minor use will constitute rateable occupation for the purposes of liability to occupied rates. . .
CitedKenya 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

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:

CitedGage v Wren 1903
. .

Cited by:

CitedKenya 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:

CitedKenya 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

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:

CitedGuild 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

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:

CitedIceland 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

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:

CitedIceland 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

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:

CitedIceland 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.
CitedIceland 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

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 AlsoBank 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:

CitedWoolway 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:

CitedWoolway 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 approvedWoolway 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:

CitedWoolway 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:

ApprovedUniversity 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

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:

CitedBank 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:

ApprovedFarmer 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. . .
CitedWoolway 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:

AppliedBank 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:

ApprovedGilbert 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: 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 AlsoBank 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 . .
AppliedUniversity 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 . .
CitedMidlothian 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 . .
CitedWoolway 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:

CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedMR, 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:

CitedCo-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:

CitedDerby 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:

CitedVictor 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

Regina v Coventry Justices Ex Parte Bullard and Another: QBD 15 Apr 1992

Computer based evidence, which says what would have been said by the person making the record, remains hearsay, and is inadmissible without statutory provision otherwise. There is no exception for summary civil proceedings for the collection of community charge arrears. Legislation in the Magistrates court had made computer based evidence admissible but only for criminal proceedings. The crucial distinction is between ‘computer print-outs containing information implanted by a human, and print-outs containing records produced without human intervention’. Critical inputs into the computer had been of information either wholly or in part implanted by human agency and were thus inadmissible in evidence. The information showing the amount of the arrears due in respect of community charges had been inputted by a person so that the printout in such circumstances was tantamount to a statement made by the person who fed the data into the machine.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Apr-1992, (1992) 95 CAR 175

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Cited by:

CitedE v London Borough of Islington Admn 25-Feb-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Rating

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86454

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

Citing:

AppliedIn 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 . .
CitedIn 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:

CitedKahn 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 . .
CitedIn 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: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81975

Hackney London Borough Council v Mott and Fairman: QBD 7 Jul 1994

Justices have no jurisdiction to check the validity of an entry on the non-domestic rating list.

Citations:

Independent 07-Jul-1994, 1994 WL 1062535

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSecerno Ltd and Others v Oxford Magistrates Court and Another Admn 19-Apr-2011
The applicants each sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrate that he did not have jurisdiction to decline to issue liability notices. They argued that the Council had failed to issue the required notices before placing the properties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81119

Semlogistics Milford Haven Ltd v Webb (Valuation Officer) (Rating – Valuation – Costs): UTLC 27 Feb 2018

UTLC RATING – Valuation – hereditament – bulk liquid storage depot and premises – contractors test – Modern Equivalent – stage 1 construction costs – stage 2 adjustments – stage 5 ‘stand back and look’ – Schedule 6, Para 2(1) Local Government Finance Act 1988 – Rateable Value determined at pounds 1,165,000

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 19 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating, Costs

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605653

Simpsons Malt Ltd v Jones and Others (Valuation Officers): UTLC 4 Dec 2017

UTLC RATING – PROCEDURE – refusal of VTE to reinstate NDR appeals struck out for failure to comply with procedural directions and practice statements – approach to be taken by VTE to non-compliance – approach to be taken by Upper Tribunal to appeals against VTE case management decisions – appeals allowed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 460 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601846

Fabulous Collections Ltd v Smith (Valuation Officer), Re: 3 Poplar Arcade: UTLC 20 Nov 2017

UTLC RATING – valuation – 2010 rating list – material change in circumstances – Touchwood shopping centre, Solihull – opening of new ‘Resorts World’ centre six miles away – whether any effect on rental values – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 452 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599591

City of York Council v Sykes (VO) (Rating – Valuation : Includes Costs): UTLC 6 Jul 2017

UTLC RATING – valuation – offices and premises – comparables – differential rates – quantum allowance – lack of parking – allowances for occupational disabilities – appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part – rateable value determined at (2010 list): pounds 1,550,000 w.e.f. 25 March 2013 and pounds 1,530,000 w.e.f. 12 April 2013

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 230 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591398

Strategic Designs (A Firm) v Thorne (VO): UTLC 13 Jun 2017

UTLC RATING – valuation – factory and premises – whether void over staircase to be included in measurement of gross internal area – value of main space – comparables – relativities for ancillary floor space – appeal allowed in part – rateable value assessed at pounds 23,000

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 201 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.587784

Hughes (VO) v York Museums and Gallery Trust: UTLC 23 May 2017

UTLC RATING – Valuation – historic buildings used as museums and galleries – whether to be valued on contractor’s basis or receipts and expenditure basis – hereditaments – whether to include events venue, museum shops and cafes – occupation – whether for sufficiently distinct purpose to require entry as separate hereditament – appeals allowed in part

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 200 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584536

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd and Others v Sykes and Others (Valuation Officers) (Rating – Hereditament – Occupation – ATMS): UTLC 12 Apr 2017

Rating lists entries for ATM machines

RATING – HEREDITAMENT – OCCUPATION – sites of automated teller machines operated by banks in supermarkets, convenience stores and petrol filling stations – whether to be separately entered in non-domestic rating list – held – sites of free standing ATMs not separate hereditaments -sites of internal ATMs in rateable occupation of host store -external ATMs in rateable occupation of ATM operator – appeals determined accordingly

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 138 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582129

KandM Wholesale Suppliers Ltd Retirement Benefit Scheme v Meadowhead Christian Fellowship: UTLC 27 Feb 2017

COMPENSATION – Compulsory Purchase – former retail unit converted to place of worship – long leasehold interest – notice to treat – choice of yields – whether any marriage value – compensation determined at 6,839 pounds – Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 31 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582117

Celsa Steel (UK) Ltd v Webb (Valuation Officer): UTLC 27 Mar 2017

RATING – valuation – steelworks and premises – contractor’s method of valuation – whether an additional end allowance should be applied at stage 5 to reflect fact premises operated in conjunction with a second property nearby – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 133 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582119

Hobbs v Gidman (Valuation Officer): UTLC 27 Feb 2017

RATING – Valuation – non-domestic hereditament – gallops at racing stables – lack of rental evidence – evidence of other assessments – whether tone of the list had been established – held that it had not – alternative costs-based approach rejected – end allowance for location – appeal allowed – Rateable Value determined at 31,000 pounds – Schedule 6 to Local Government Finance Act 1988.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 63 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Finance Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582116

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 UT, the premises were undergoing reconstruction on the material day and that the UT was entitled to alter the rating list as it did to reflect that reality.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 14, [2017] 1 WLR 851, [2017] WLR(D) 178, [2017] RA 95, [2017] 2 All ER 971, UKSC 2015/0069

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At UTLCS J and J Monk (A Firm) v Newbigin (VO) UTLC 26-Feb-2014
UTLC RATING – alteration of rating list – material day – whether proposal was to correct inaccuracy in list on day of compilation (1 April 2010) or whether list inaccurate by reason of material change of . .
CitedPoplar 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 . .
CitedTownley 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 . .
CitedArbuckle 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 . .
CitedWexler v Playle (VO) CA 1960
The statutory hypothesis was that the reasonable landlord, when contracting with the tenant for the let of a dwelling house, undertook to put the property in repair and would do so by removing ‘readily remediable defects’ or ‘reparable and temporary . .
CitedDawkins (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 . .
CitedHounslow London Borough Council v Rent Audio Visual Ltd and Bryant (VO) 1970
. .
CitedEasiwork 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 . .
CitedRavenseft 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 . .
CitedSaunders v Maltby (VO) CA 1976
The landlord’s repair obligation in the statutory provision did not extend to uneconomic repairs which were disproportionate to the value of the property; instead the landlord would let the property at a lower rent. . .
CitedCamden London Borough Council v Langford CA 1980
Eveleigh LJ distinguished between repairs needed to make good decay, which fell within the hypothetical landlord’s repair obligation, and structural work on reinforced concrete columns and beams to preserve the stability and duration of the . .
CitedDe Silva and Another v Davis (VO) 1983
. .
Appeal fromNewbigin (Valuation Officer) v S J and J Monk (A Firm) CA 13-Feb-2015
. .
CitedPaynter (VO) v Buxton LT 1986
The Tribunal upheld a nil valuation of two flats on the first and second floors of a terraced house in London which, along with the third floor flat, were undergoing a programme of refurbishment works, which were progressing from the top down. At . .
CitedBenjamin v Anston Properties Ltd LT 1998
Because, under the 1988 Act, the hypothetical tenant bore the obligation to repair, the rental value of the hereditament would be adversely affected by a state of disrepair, . .
CitedR F Williams (Valuation Officer) v Scottish and Newcastle Retail Ltd Allied Domecq Retailing Ltd CA 15-Feb-2001
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedTelereal 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: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.577937

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 operations or trade processes’ within the meaning of the 2000 Regulations.
Held: The valuation officer’s appeal failed. The air handling system fell to be excluded in calculating the rateable value of the premises.

Sir Geoffrey Charles Vos Ch, Gloster, Sharp LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1150, [2016] WLR(D) 620, [2017] Bus LR 766, [2017] Bus LR 1098
Bailii, WLRD
Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (England) Regulations 2000, Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sch 6
England and Wales
Citing:
At UTLCBerry (VO) v Iceland Foods Ltd UTLC 14-Jan-2015
UTLC RATING – PLANT AND MACHINERY – air handling unit – whether rateable – whether used mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing operations or trade processes – meaning of ‘trade processes’ – reg.2, . .
CitedKirby 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 . .
CitedTownley 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 . .
CitedTownley 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 . .
CitedUnion 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 . .
CitedUnion 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 . .

Cited by:
At CAIceland 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.
Rating

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571933

Beaconside Country House and Cottages and Another v Gidman (Valuation Officer): UTLC 7 Nov 2016

UTLC RATING – valuation – 2010 Rating List – self-catering holiday units – receipts and expenditure method of valuation – fair maintainable trade – working expenses – depreciation – divisible balance – applicability of Redrose v Elizabeth Thomas (VO) [2014] UKUT 311 (LC) – appeal allowed in part

[2016] UKUT 497 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571439

Branwood, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 26 Apr 2013

This case concerns a Local Council Tax Support scheme and adherence by a local council to the duty to consult and the public sector equality duty.

Haddon-Cave J
[2013] EWHC 1024 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Local Government, Rating

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.523761

UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council: CA 15 Jun 2017

The parties disputed the effective service of a completion notice so as to bring the new property into the rating list.

Gloster VP CA, Macur, King LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 430, [2017] PTSR 1606, [2017] WLR(D) 402
Bailii, WLRD
Local Government Finance Act 1988, Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal FromWestminster City Council v UKI (Kingsway) Ltd and Another UTLC 28-Jul-2015
UTLC RATING – procedure – service of completion notice – whether completion notice addressed only to ‘the owner’ valid – whether delivery of completion notice to premises followed by onward transmission of . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromUKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Rating

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.588205

Tuplin (Valuation Officer) v Focus (DIY) Ltd: UTLC 1 Jul 2009

UTLC RATING – proposal – validity – agreed alteration taking effect at beginning of financial year in which proposal made – further proposal made referring to VT decision – object to achieve earlier effective date for alteration – whether proposal valid – held that it was – Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 regs 4A, 5A, 7 and 13A.

[2009] UKUT 118 (LC)
Bailii
Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993
England and Wales

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.373420

Zhou v Osborne (Valuation Officer): LT 19 Aug 2008

LT RATING – composite hereditament – home working from ground floor front room – practice of Chinese medicine (acupuncture and herbalism) – window signage – advertisements – fitting out of room – whether medical practice commenced – appeal allowed – Local Government Finance Act 1988, s66(1)(a).

[2008] EWLands RA – 56 – 2007
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988 66(1)(a)
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.278622

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v United Kingdom: ECHR 4 Mar 2014

latterdayECHR0314

The claimant said that it had been wrongfully deprived of relief from business rates for its two temples. It asserted that it was a religion, and that the treatment was discriminatory. The government said that the refusal was on the basis alone that the temples were not open to the public, and similar differentiations for example applied to the Church of England.
Held: Article 14 complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to ‘the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms’ safeguarded by those provisions. The claim failed: ‘insofar as any difference of treatment between religious groups in comparable situations can be said to have been established in relation to tax exemption of places of worship, such difference of treatment had a reasonable and objective justification. In particular, the contested measure pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest and there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between that aim and the means used to achieve it. The domestic authorities cannot be considered as having exceeded the margin of appreciation available to them in this context, even having due regard to the duties incumbent on the State by virtue of Article 9 of the Convention in relation to its exercise of its regulatory powers in the sphere of religious freedom. ‘

Ineta Ziemele, P
7552/09 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 227
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 9 14
Citing:
CitedEweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
CitedGallagher (Valuation Officer) v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints HL 30-Jul-2008
The House considered whether certain properties of the Church were subject to non-domestic rating. Various buildings were on the land, and the officer denied that some fell within the exemptions, and in particular whether the Temple itself was a . .
CitedChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v Henning (Valuation Officer) HL 1964
The House was asked whether the Mormon Temple at Godstone was exempt from rates as a ‘place of public religious worship’.
Held: The words could not apply to places used for religious worship from which the public was excluded.
Lord Pearce . .
CitedNational Union of Belgian Police v Belgium ECHR 27-Oct-1975
Hudoc No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+11
The Belgian Government failed to consult a municipal police union about legislation affecting public sector employment rights. The union’s direct . .
CitedThlimmenos v Greece ECHR 6-Apr-2000
(Grand Chamber) The application of a rule that a felon could not become a chartered accountant infringed the rights under article 14, taken in conjunction with article 9, of a pacifist convicted of the felony of refusing to perform military service. . .
CitedSchmidt And Dahlstrom v Sweden ECHR 6-Feb-1976
ECHR No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+11 . .
CitedHasan and Chaush v Bulgaria ECHR 26-Oct-2000
The Grand Chamber considered executive interference in the appointment of the Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims: ‘Where the organisation of the religious community is at issue, Article 9 must be interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the . .
CitedMetropolitan Church Of Bessarabia And Others v Moldova ECHR 13-Dec-2001
‘in principle, the right to freedom of religion as understood in the Convention rules out any appreciation by the state of the legitimacy of religious beliefs or of the manner in which these are expressed’ . .
CitedDH v Czech Republic ECHR 13-Nov-2007
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that their children had been moved to special schools which did not reflect their needs from ordinary schools without them being consulted.
Held: The Court noted that, at the relevant time, the . .
CitedReligionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas And Others v Austria ECHR 31-Jul-2008
The State has a duty to remain neutral and impartial in exercising its regulatory power in the sphere of religious freedom and in its relations with different religions, denominations and beliefs. . .
CitedBurden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Dec-2006
Sisters,Together always not Discriminated Against
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives and owned property jointly. They complained that the Inheritance Tax regime treated them worse than it would a married couple, and was discriminatory.
Held: . .
CitedRunkee And White v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2007
The claimant said that the rules which denied him a widow’s pension were sex discrimination.
Held: The normally strict test for justification of sex discrimination in the enjoyment of the Convention rights gives way to the ‘manifestly without . .
CitedSavez Crkava (Rijec Zivota) And Others v Croatia ECHR 9-Dec-2010
. .
CitedCarson and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 4-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) Pensioners who had moved abroad complained that they had been excluded from the index-linked uprating of pensions given to pensioners living in England.
Held: This was not an infringement of their human rights. Differences in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Ecclesiastical, Rating

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.521979

John Laing and Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Committee: KBD 1949

The appellant building contractors had been engaged by the Air Ministry to execute works at an aerodrome. They erected on the site, for the purpose of carrying out the contract, offices, garages, canteen for workmen and other structures. Although the site was handed over to the contractors, the conditions of the contract between the contractors and the Air Ministry specified that the execution of the work was subject to the control and direction of the Ministry’s Superintending Officer. In due course the local rating authority proposed to amend its valuation list by adding the contractors’ officers and other structures as a rateable hereditament. A special case was stated for the opinion of the Divisional Court on the question whether the contractors were in rateable occupation of that hereditament.
Held: The contractor’s appeal failed. The four conditions of rateable occupation are (i) actual occupational possession (which involves actual as opposed to intended user of the land in question); (ii) occupation or possession which is exclusive (ie if the occupier can exclude all other persons from using the land in the same way as he does); (iii) occupation or possession which is of some value or benefit to the occupier/possessor; (iv) occupation or possession which has a sufficient quality of permanence.
Tucker LJ said: ‘Mr Rowe has said that there are four necessary ingredients in rateable occupation, and I do not think there is any controversy with regard to those ingredients. First, there must be actual occupation; secondly, that it must be exclusive for the particular purposes of the possessor; thirdly, that the possession must be of some value or benefit to the possessor; and, fourthly, the possession must not be for too transient a period.’
Jenkins J, dealing with the fourth requirement, considered that it had been met by the fact that the builders’ huts had been on the land for the two years that work was being carried out there.

Tucker LJ, Jenkins J
[1949] 1 KB 344
England and Wales
Cited by:
ApprovedLondon County Council v Wilkins (Valuation Officer) HL 1957
Four builders’ moveable huts, which had been erected as temporary structures on a site for 18 months, only one of which was moved from one part of the site to the other during that period, were claimed chattels and therefore not rateable.
CitedTallington Lakes Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Grantham Magistrates Court Admn 25-Nov-2010
The company appealed against liability orders made against it for non-payment of domestic rates, saying that in each case it had not been the rateable occupier. The property had been subdivided and let to companies of which the appellant was a . .
CitedJDE Plant Hire Limited v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company appealed against liability orders made against it. It owned premises which were subdivided and let to other businesses which it contended were the ones in actual occupation, since it did not benefit from physical, non-transient . .
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop Admn 6-Mar-2012
The respondent occupied a tugboat with his family as his home. The appellant authority had sought to charge council tax, saying that it was a dwelling. The boat was not a houseboat but a live-aboard seagoing vessel, registered in the Small Ships . .
ApprovedCinderella Rockerfellas Ltd v Rudd (Valuation Officer) CA 11-Apr-2003
The taxpayer appealed against a rating assessment on a barge permanently moored at a riverbank. He claimed that as a chattel, it should not be rated.
Held: The vessel was a chattel, but its occupation could be an occupation of the riverbed. . .
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop CA 17-Apr-2013
The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that . .
CitedSunderland City Council v Stirling Investment Properties Llp Admn 24-May-2013
The Council appealed by cases stated against dismissal of its summons against the defendant alleging non-payment of non-domestic rates. The property owned by the respondent had been occupied by a tenant, but only by a small equipment box, and the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.181050

Hilleshog Sugar Beet Breeding Co Ltd v Wilke: LT 1971

hilleshopLT1971

Parcels of land were occupied for 9-10 months in a year.
Held: This was not too transient a period to establish a rateable occupation notwithstanding that in subsequent years the occupation passed on to the other land.
Sir Michael Rowe QC, P said: ‘The ratepayers’ possession of the plots they hold in any one year is not intermittent nor is it casual; it is a continuous possession for nine months or so, which cover the whole, at least in most years, of the period during which the land can be cultivated and planted up and the crop grown to maturity and harvested’.

Sir Michael Rowe QC P
[1971] RA 275
Cited by:
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop Admn 6-Mar-2012
The respondent occupied a tugboat with his family as his home. The appellant authority had sought to charge council tax, saying that it was a dwelling. The boat was not a houseboat but a live-aboard seagoing vessel, registered in the Small Ships . .
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop CA 17-Apr-2013
The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.451836

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.
Held: Iceland’s appeal was allowed and the decision of the First Tier Tribunal restored. The 2000 Regulations had not intended to alter the law: ‘ plant which is used in connection with ‘services to the hereditament’ may also be used in connection with ‘services . . as part of manufacturing operations or trade processes . . ‘. Viewed in this way, the key distinction lies in the main use to which the services are put: in connection with the hereditament, or with the processes within it.’
The rateable value of a non-domestic hereditament is taken to be ‘an amount equal to the rent at which it is estimated the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year’ on the basis of certain prescribed assumptions. Prescribed assumptions are set out in the 2000 Regulations which include the assumption that any plant or machinery, if it belongs to any class listed in the Schedule to the 2000 Regulations, is assumed to be part of the hereditament in or on which it is situated: ‘ other than any such plant or machinery which is in or on the hereditament and is used or intended to be used in connection with services mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing operations or trade processes.” The plant ell within this exemption.

Lord Kerr, Lord Reed,Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lady Black
[2018] UKSC 15, UKSC 2016/0226
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary video, SC 250118 am Jhearing, SC 290118pm Hearing
Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (England) Regulations 2000, Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sch 6
England and Wales
Citing:
At UTLCBerry (VO) v Iceland Foods Ltd UTLC 14-Jan-2015
UTLC RATING – PLANT AND MACHINERY – air handling unit – whether rateable – whether used mainly or exclusively as part of manufacturing operations or trade processes – meaning of ‘trade processes’ – reg.2, . .
At CAIceland 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 . .
Much CriticisedKirby 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 . .
CitedTownley 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 . .
CitedTownley 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 . .
CitedUnion 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 . .
CitedUnion 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 . .
CitedPepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
CitedKilmarnock Equitable Co-operative Society Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCS 16-Feb-1966
Income Tax, Schedule D – Profits Tax – Capital allowances – Industrial building or structure – Building for screening and packing coal – Whether coal subjected to a process – Whether building used for purpose ancillary to a retail shop – Income Tax . .
CitedAssessor 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’ . .
CitedHays 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 . .
CitedBestway (Holdings) Ltd v Luff (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 4-Mar-1998
The taxpayer company operated a wholesale cash and carry business from a number of self-service supermarkets. The stores sold groceries, household goods, tobacco, confectionery and various kinds of alcohol. Although the buildings were not open to . .
CitedLeda Properties Ltd, Re: Computer Centre LT 27-Mar-2009
LT RATING – hereditament – computer centre – whether entry to be deleted from list on ground that incapable of beneficial use – held that it should not be – whether open to appellant on basis of proposal for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.605757

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 hereditament been on the market at the relevant date nobody in the real world would have been prepared to occupy the property and pay a positive price – other comparable office properties in occupation at substantial rents at relevant date – whether a nil (or nominal) rateable value to be entered in valuation list . . appeal allowed.

[2016] UKUT 258 (LC)
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales
Cited by:
At UTLCTelereal 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 . .
At UTLCTelereal 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: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.565806

Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Co: HL 1936

Subject to special enactments, people are treated as occupiers of land, land being understood as including not only the surface of the earth but all strata above or below. The occupier, not the land, is rateable; but the occupier is rateable in respect of the land which he occupies. Whether the person sought to be rated has the enjoyment of the land ‘to the substantial exclusion of all other persons’ is a question of in fact is the occupation in respect of which the person is said to be rateable and, in that respect, it is immaterial whether the title to occupy is attributable to a lease or a licence.
Lord Russell of Killowen said: ‘In the next place I would make a few general observations upon rateable occupation. Subject to special enactments, people are rated as occupiers of land, the land being understood as including not only the surface of the earth but all strata above or below. The occupier, not the land, is rateable; but, the occupier is rateable in respect of the land which he occupies. Occupation, however, is not synonymous with legal possession: the owner of an empty house has the legal possession, but he is not in rateable occupation. Rateable occupation, however, must include actual possession, and it must have some degree of permanence: a mere temporary holding of land will not constitute rateable occupation.’
. . And ‘Where there is no rival claimant to the occupancy, no difficulty can arise; but in certain cases there may be rival occupancy in some person who, to some extent, may have occupancy rights over the premises. The question in every such case must be one of fact – namely, whose position in relation to occupation is paramount, and whose permission in relation to occupancy is subordinate; but, in my opinion, the question must be considered and answered in regard to the position and rights of the parties in respect of the premises in question, and in regard to the purpose of the occupation of those premises.’

Lord Russell of Killowen
[1936] AC 511
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCinderella Rockerfellas Ltd v Rudd (Valuation Officer) CA 11-Apr-2003
The taxpayer appealed against a rating assessment on a barge permanently moored at a riverbank. He claimed that as a chattel, it should not be rated.
Held: The vessel was a chattel, but its occupation could be an occupation of the riverbed. . .
CitedRegina v Central Valuation Officer and another ex parte Edison First Power Limited HL 10-Apr-2003
Powergen sold a property to Edison. Powergen 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 . .
CitedTallington Lakes Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Grantham Magistrates Court Admn 25-Nov-2010
The company appealed against liability orders made against it for non-payment of domestic rates, saying that in each case it had not been the rateable occupier. The property had been subdivided and let to companies of which the appellant was a . .
CitedReeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop CA 17-Apr-2013
The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.181048

Porter (Valuation Officer) v Trustees of Gladman Sipps: UTLC 20 May 2011

UTLC RATING – hereditament – newly erected office buildings – entered in rating list by VO – units lacking small power points and partitioning – whether rateable hereditaments to be entered in the list – held they were not – appeal dismissed – Local Government Finance Act 1988 s 42(1).

N J Rose P
[2011] UKUT 204 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.440792

Arsenal Football Club Ltd v Ende, Smith: HL 1978

It was said that the Arsenal football stadium was under-valued in local rating list. The House was asked who might be a ‘person aggrieved’ and entitled to complain about the under-valuation of a hereditament in the same area.
Held: A person liable to pay rates in the same area was entitled to challenge the valuation of another hereditament even if he could not show any financial or other loss to himself.
Lord Wilberforce said that ‘Uniformity and fairness have always been proclaimed and judicially approved as standards by which to judge the validity of rates.’
Viscount Dilhorne said: ‘While it is true that words in the English language take colour from the context in which they are used, I see nothing in the subsection or in the remainder of the 1967 Act to warrant giving to the word ‘aggrieved’ any meaning other than its ordinary natural meaning. To be ‘aggrieved’ a person must be affected by the matter of which he complains.’

Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
[1979] AC 1
General Rate Act 1967 69(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWalton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.470546

North Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others: QBD 2 Jul 2010

Deleayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective

The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created substantial prejudice. The Council challenged the correctness of the Waltham Forest and Nottingham cases.
Held: The court reviewed the issue of delay in issuing claims for rates. Though Honda had been in rateable occupation, the claims had ot been served as soon as was practicable, and, given the Council’s delays which would lead to an unconscionable burden on Honda, the case for recovering the sums claimed was unsustainable. The claim against all the defendants failed.

Burnett J
[2010] EWHC 1505 (QB), [2010] RA 285
Bailii
Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1058), Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEncon Insulation Ltd v Nottingham City Council Admn 9-Jun-1999
When the rating authority discovered ratable premises, and issued claims going back in time the test was not whether they were unaware of them earlier, but whether they could have taken steps beforehand to discover the existence of the premises. A . .
CitedLondon Borough of Waltham Forest, Regina (On the Application of) v Waltham Forest Magistrates’ Court and Yem Yom Ventures Limited Admn 4-Nov-2008
. .
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
CitedJJB Sports Plc, Regina (On the Application of) v Telford and Wrekin Borough Council Admn 5-Nov-2008
The authority’s demand notice was served later than was practicable. The company now appealed against a liability order.
Held: The ratepayer’s appeal by way of Case Stated was dismissed. ‘demand notices must be served by the relevant authority . .
CitedRegentford Ltd v Thanet District Council Admn 18-Feb-2004
The council sought to enforce payment of arrears of council tax. The company responded that proceedings had not been begun in time. The company contended that time ran from the day when the council set the precept. The regulations said that time ran . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jeyeanthan; Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 21-May-1999
The applicant had failed to comply with the Rules in not using the form prescribed for appliying for leave to appeal against a special adjudicator’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The application, by letter, included all the relevant . .
CitedHardy v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 27-Jul-2006
Appeal against finding of liability to pay council tax.
Held: A Magistrates’ Court which is invited to make a liability order may be entitled to refuse to make such an order in a case where there has been a serious breach of the mandatory . .
CitedHoward v Bodington Carc 27-Feb-1877
Imperative or Directory Statutory Requirements
The court considered the consequences of a failure to comply with a statutory requirement.
Held: The distinction drawn between statutory requirements which were ‘imperative’ on the one hand and ‘directory’ on the other involved unfortunate use . .
CitedLondon and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
Identifying ‘maandatory’ and ‘regulatory’
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
CitedRegentford Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Shepway District Council Admn 25-Oct-2006
A breach of the statutory duty by the billing authority to serve the notice as soon as practicable does not operate in all cases as a windfall to the person otherwise liable, but the breach precludes a claim to payment and a duty to pay only where . .
CitedWandsworth London Borough Council v Winder HL 1985
Rent demands were made by a local authority landlord on one of its tenants. The local authority, using its powers under the Act, resolved to increase rents generally. The tenant refused to pay the increased element of the rent. He argued that the . .
CitedCharles v The Judicial and Legal Service Commission and The Disciplinary Tribunal PC 19-Jun-2002
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) Disciplinary proceedings had commenced against the appellant, the chief magistrate, but the time limits had not been followed. The appellant argued that the time limits were mandatory. . .
CitedProject Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority 28-Apr-1998
(High Court of Australia) ‘In our opinion, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was correct in Tasker v Fullwood in criticising the continued use of the ‘elusive distinction between directory and mandatory requirements’ and the division of . .
CitedWang v Commissioner of Inland Revenue PC 19-Oct-1994
(Hong Kong) At first instance the judge found that the deputy commissioner lacked jurisdiction to make two determinations since he had not done so within a reasonable time required by the imperative language of the statute. The Court of Appeal . .
CitedBoddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
CitedDedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances CA 1973
The claimant sought to bring his claim under a provision which required a complaint to the industrial tribunal to be made within four weeks of the dismissal unless the employment tribunal was satisfied that this was not ‘practicable’. He did not . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable of South Wales and Another Ex Parte Merrick QBD 17-Feb-1994
The court considered the failure of the respondent to comply with a statutory requirement to comply with a request from a detained person to consult a solicitor ‘as soon as practicable’.
Held: For the police to deny access to solicitors at . .
CitedAllan v Liverpool Overseers 1874
The court was asked whether a steamship company was liable to be rated in respect of its occupation of sheds which it occupied under a licence from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The court noted that liability for rates fell only on a person . .
CitedHewson, Chapman and Co ltd v Grimsby County Borough Council 1953
That storage facilities might stand empty from time to time does not result in their ceasing to be in rateable occupation during those periods. . .
CitedMilford Haven Conservancy Board v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1976
The Minister had power to make provision by order for determining rateable values ‘by such method as may be so specified’. The formula prescribed by the Minister for dock undertakings was based on 4% of their receipts, including receipts from some . .
CitedCamden London Borough Council v Herwald 1978
Occupation of part of a hereditament by someone who retains legal possession of the whole and whose occupation of the part fulfils the description in the rating list, amounts to rateable occupation of the whole. . .
CitedRegina v Central Valuation Officer and another ex parte Edison First Power Limited HL 10-Apr-2003
Powergen sold a property to Edison. Powergen 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 . .
CitedP.B. Groenveld BV v Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees ECJ 8-Nov-1979
A prohibited restriction on exports involved a national measure having discriminatory effect: ‘provision [i.e. Article 29 EC; now Article 35 TFEU] concerns the national measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of . .
CitedEdison First Power Ltd v The Secretary of State for Department of Environment Transport and the Regions CA 12-Jul-2001
. .

Cited by:
CitedSecerno Ltd and Others v Oxford Magistrates Court and Another Admn 19-Apr-2011
The applicants each sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrate that he did not have jurisdiction to decline to issue liability notices. They argued that the Council had failed to issue the required notices before placing the properties . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.420209

United Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of England v Holborn Borough Council: 1957

The Freemasons sought to be entitled to rating relief as having the purpose of advancing religion. To belong to the Freemasons a person did not need to practise any religion providing he believed in a Supreme Being and lived a moral life. This was viewed as laudable but not the same as advancing religion. It was noted that it might be argued that religion can be advanced by ‘example as well as precept’ but there was no evidence before the Court that the main object of Masons was to go out in the world and, by their example, lead persons to one religion or another. There was ‘no religious instruction, no programme for the persuasion of unbelievers, no religious supervision to see that its members remain active and constant in the various religions they profess, no holding of religious services, no pastoral or missionary work of any kind.’
Held: The Court defined ‘advancing’ religion as meaning ‘to promote it, to spread its message ever wider among mankind; to take some positive steps to sustain and increase religious belief.’ This was said to be able to be done ‘in a variety of ways which may be comprehensively described as pastoral and missionary.’

[1957] 1 WLR 1080, [1957] 3 All ER 281
England and Wales

Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.570864

Powys County Council v Hurst: Admn 4 Jul 2018

Pension not attachable for Council Tax arrears

Recovery of unpaid council tax – whether pension was ‘earnings’ for attachment of earnings order.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The pension was not available to be attached, and it had exhausted all alternatives to committal.

Hickinbottom, Singh LJJ
[2018] EWHC 1684 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 413
Bailii, WLRD
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
England and Wales

Rating, Magistrates

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.619004

Reeves (VO) v Tobias and Others: UTLC 22 Nov 2010

RATING – hereditament – whether car parking spaces in a car park licensed to residential occupiers and used by them in connection with nearby residential premises were domestic property and so exempt from rating – held they were not – appeal allowed – Local Government Finance Act 1988, s 66(1)

[2010] UKUT 411 (LC), [2011] 16 EG 80, [2011] RA 149
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.569613

Ash (Valuation Officer): LT 29 Sep 2008

LT RATING – valuation – 2005 list – outdoor market authorised by Royal Charter and operated by local authority – whether shortened profits method of valuation appropriate – held that it was -appeal allowed – RV increased from andpound;6,100 to andpound;14,300.

[2008] EWLands RA – 64 – 2007
Bailii
England and Wales

Rating

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.278623

Royal College of Nursing v Borough of St Marylebone: CA 27 Oct 1959

The College sought exemption from rates in respect of a nurses’ home saying that its objects made it a charitable organisation. It was not conducted for profit, but appeared to have two main purposes.
Held: Each of the purposes must be charitable for the exemption to apply. The one at issue was the object ‘to promote the advance of nursing as a profession in all or any of its branches’,

Morris, Romer, Willmer LJJ
[1959] EWCA Civ 1, [1959] 3 All ER 663, [1959] 1 WLR 1077
Bailii
Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 8
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedOverseers of the Savoy v Art Union of London Limited QBD 1894
AL Smith LJ considered the objects of the company: ‘If the other object be only a means to the one end . . then the Society has a sole and exclusive object and not another object subsidiary thereto’. . .
CitedGeneral Nursing Council for England and Wales v St Marylebone Borough Council HL 1959
The court considered how to decide whether the Council could claim exemption from rates.
Held: The court should restrict its consideration to the purposes as set out and not look to the actual activities. The relevant clause had as its main . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Rating, Charity

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.262822