The ratepayers had a legal right to use a lake for sporting activities and to maintain a floating clubhouse on the lake. The clubhouse was made fast in a particular location upon the lake but it was moved in winter months to an island in the centre of the lake.
Held: The lake and clubhouse were rateable as part of the ratepayers hereditament. Rateable occupation was to be determined by a consideration of the ‘four tests of rateability referred to by the solicitor for the valuation officer, which were first propounded by Counsel in the John Laing case, and subsequently adopted by the House of Lords in London County Council v Wilkins.’ The tribunal considered the fact that the clubhouse was moved from the position in which it was used during the winter months, saying: ‘It remains for me therefore to consider what weight ought to be attached to the fact that the clubhouse is moored for the winter months each year – the actual months were not specified – to the island in the middle of the lake. Does this movement lead to the conclusion that contrary to Lord Denning’s words in the Field Place case, there is not such a degree of permanence that the chattel with the land can together be regarded as one unit of occupation? This question seems to me to be the same question as that which has been asked when the fourth ingredient of rateable occupation has been under consideration – ‘possession for not too transient a period’. There have been a number of cases where the period of time during which occupation has been maintained has been taken as the relevant factor. For example, in John Laing’s case, although the question of transience was not directly an issue, the temporary structures were in position for two years; in Wilkins’ case, for about 18 months – although one hut was moved once during a period of about 20 months and so must have spent a maximum of 10 months on one site. In both cases it was held that there was rateable occupation of the huts. Similarly in Hilleshog Sugar Beet Breeding Co Ltd v Wilkes parcels of land were occupied for 9-10 months in a year. This was held by the Lands Tribunal to be not too transient a period to establish a rateable occupation notwithstanding that in subsequent years the occupation passed on to the other land . . In Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons Ltd v Payne it was held by the Lands Tribunal that occupation for 6-7 months was not enough. In his decision, Sir Michael Rowe drew a distinction between occupation by a settler and that by a wayfarer. The distinction appears to have been taken from a passage in the judgment of Lush J in R v St Pancras Assessment Committee . . These authorities suggest to me, that although duration of occupation is an important factor in determining degrees of transience, the character of the occupation can also have a bearing on its permanent nature. The movement of the clubhouse in the present case to another place within the hereditament does not in my judgment disturb the permanent character of a link between occupation of the chattel and occupation of the rest of the hereditament.’
Judges:
JH Emlyn Jones Esq FRICS
Citations:
[1972] RA 49
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Reeves (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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Rating
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.451835